Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-09-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. This case raises important questions about the interaction between provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA 1998”) on the one hand and provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA 2002”) on the other. The corresponding provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA 2000”), which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and applies to UK public authorities located in Scotland, are not engaged directly. The appellant, the Common Services Agency (“the Agency”), is a special Health Board the regulation of whose functions is a matter for the Scottish Parliament: see FOIA 2000, section 80. But much of the wording of section 38 of FOISA 2002, which address...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. These six appeals all raise the question of whether claims for sexual assaults and abuse which took place many years before the commencement of proceedings are barred by the Limitation Act 1980. The general rule is that the period of limitation for an action in tort is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrues. This period derives from the Limitation Act 1623 and is now contained in section 2 of the 1980 Act. All the claimants started proceedings well after the six years had expired. It follows that, if section 2 applies, their claims are barred. But sections 11 to 14 contain provisions, first introduced by the Limitation Act 1975, which create a different regime for actions for “damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty", where the damages are in respect of personal injuries. In such cases the limitation period is three years from either the date when the cause of action accrued or the “date of knowledge” as defi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. 2. The exercise which is contemplated by para 4 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 (1997 SI/1984), as amended by the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001 (2001 SI/3561), leaves much to the judgment of the rent officer. But, as its rather complex formula indicates, the area within which that judgment is to be exercised is not unlimited. It follows that, if his decision is challenged, the rent officer must be in a position to show that he has conducted the exercise in the way that is required by the paragraph. 3. The principle of valuation which the rent officer is asked to apply requires him to make an assessment based on a comparison with the rents payable for dw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-30-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL 1. The issue in this appeal is whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing the guidance she did to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006. At first instance Stanley Burnton J, who also had other issues to decide, upheld the lawfulness of the guidance: [2007] EWHC 199 (QB). The Court of Appeal (Sedley, Maurice Kay and Rimer LJJ) [2007] EWCA Civ 1139 held that it was unlawful. The Secretary of State challenges that decision in this appeal to the House. Pending the outcome of this litigation the guidance has been suspended. Background 2. Under sections 1 - 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as under its successor statute, the Secretary of State for Health had an overall responsibility to provide or secure the provision of medical and related services under the auspices of the National Health Service. To ensure the provision of adequate care and treatment it is necessary that there should be appropriately q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In these proceedings the appellant, Animal Defenders International, seeks a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 is incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as given effect in this country by the 1998 Act. The section is said to be incompatible as imposing an unjustified restraint on the right to freedom of political expression. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Auld LJ and Ouseley J) refused to make a declaration of incompatibility ([2006] EWHC 3069 (Admin), [2007] EMLR 158) but granted a leapfrog certificate under section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 and the House granted the appellant leave to appeal. 2. The appellant is a non-profit company whose aims include the suppression, by lawful means, of all forms of cruelty to animals, the alleviation of suffering and the conservation and protection of animals and their envir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-30-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. LORD RODGER My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I too would allow the appeal. LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY My Lords, 5. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jan-23-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in full agreement with it and would, for the reasons which he gives, allow the appeal and make the order which he proposes. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 2. I have the advantage of considering the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, in draft. I agree with it and, for the reasons he gives, I too would allow the appeal and make the order which he proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 3. I agree that this appeal should be allowed, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is not strictly necessary, therefore, to express a view on the issues discussed by my noble and learned friend, Lord Mance, in paragraphs 42 to 53 of his opinion. But they were fully canvassed in argument before us. I feel it only fair, therefore, to confess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. Like him, I can find no merit in any of the grounds on which the decision of the Extra Division was challenged. I would dismiss the appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the opportunity of reading a draft of the opinion on this appeal prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and I am in complete and respectful agreement with the reasons he has given for dismissing this appeal. There is nothing I can usefully add and so I too, for the same reasons, would dismiss the appeal. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech which is to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I am in full agreement with it and, for the reasons he gives, I too would dismiss the appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 4. I have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-27-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The issue in this appeal is whether loss attributable to the death by suicide of the late Mr Thomas Corr is recoverable by his dependent widow under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in this action against his former employer. 2. Mr Corr was employed as a maintenance engineer by the appellant company (“the employer”), a manufacturer of light commercial vehicles. On 22 June 1996, then aged almost 31, he was working on a prototype line of presses which produced panels for Vauxhall vehicles. He was working, with another, to remedy a fault on an automated arm with a sucker for lifting panels. The machine picked up a metal panel from the press, without warning, and moved it forcibly in Mr Corr’s direction. He would have been decapitated had he not instinctively moved his head. He was struck to the right side of his head and most of his right ear was severed. 3. As a result of this accident, Mr Corr underwent long and painful re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-20-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I adopt with gratitude his account of the facts and of the provisions of the contract that have given rise to the dispute. I add these brief comments to explain why, after some initial hesitation, I agree with him that the appeal should be dismissed. 2. For the reasons that were explained in Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd [2007] UKHL18, [2007] 1 WLR 1136, the background to the case is to be found in the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Section 108(1) of that Act provides that a party to a construction contract has the right to refer a dispute arising under the contract to adjudication under a procedure complying with that section. Section 109 provides that a party to a construction contract is entitled to payment by instalments for any work under the contract and that the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!