Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. Jaymarke Estates Ltd ("Estates") was incorporated in Scotland in 1991 but remained dormant until towards the end of 1994, when it was used by its two shareholders and directors, Mr Shaw and Mr Wilson, to carry out a property development near Aberdeen. In early 1996, shortly before the development was completed, the directors fell out with each other and Mr Wilson resigned. Mr Shaw, who held 70% of the issued share capital, continued as sole director. In November 1997 Mr Wilson, who held the remaining 30%, presented a petition under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985, claiming that the company's affairs had been conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the interests of a part of its members, namely, himself. 2. After a nine day hearing the sheriff at Aberdeen declared herself satisfied that the petition was well founded. The unfairly prejudicial conduct upon which she relied was (a) an irrecoverable loan of 88,125 to a company of which Mr Shaw's son wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD STEYN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Hoffmann and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. For the reasons they have given I would dismiss the appeal. LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 2. Zain Hashmi is a little boy, now aged 6, who suffers from a serious genetic disorder called beta thalassaemia major. His bone marrow does not produce enough red blood cells and in consequence he is often very poorly and needs daily drugs and regular blood transfusions to keep him alive. But he could be restored to normal life by a transplant of stem cells from a tissue compatible donor. 3. The problem is to find compatible tissue which Zain's immune system will not reject. The chances of finding a compatible donor who is not a sibling are extremely low. Even in the case of siblings, the chances are only one in four. None of Zain's three elder siblings is compatible. In addition, the donor must be free of the same disorder. That lengthens the odd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD STEYN My Lords, 1. I have read the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in complete agreement with it. I would also make the order which he proposes. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading a draft of the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and am in full agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 3. I have read the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in complete agreement with it. I too would make the order which he proposes. LORD CARSWELL My Lords, 4. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with his reasons and conclusion and I would allow the appeal and make the order which he proposes. LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD My Lords, Introduction 5. This is the fourth appeal b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The nine appellants before the House challenge a decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf CJ, Brooke and Chadwick LJJ) made on 25 October 2002 ([2002] EWCA Civ 1502, [2004] QB 335). The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary's appeal against the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Collins J, Kennedy LJ and Mr Ockelton) dated 30 July 2002 and dismissed the appellants' cross-appeals against that decision: [2002] HRLR 1274. 2. Eight of the appellants were certified by the Home Secretary under section 21 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 on 17 or 18 December 2001 and were detained under section 23 of that Act on 19 December 2001. The ninth was certified on 5 February 2002 and detained on 8 February 2002. Two of the eight December detainees exercised their right to leave the United Kingdom: one went to Morocco on 22 December 2001, the other (a French as well as an Algerian citizen) went to France on 13 March 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I agree with them, and for the reasons they give I would allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and restore the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 2. The appellant, Mr Keith Ainsworth, complains that his former employers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“the Revenue”), wrongly made a deduction from his wages. Workers have been making complaints of this kind for centuries. More surprisingly, perhaps, for centuries also, the legislature used the Truck Acts to try to prevent employers from making arbitrary deductions - for example, for errors or misconduct - which would deprive the workers of the substance of their earnings. The case law on the subject was not always consistent and eventually...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in section 1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. There is some evidence before the House about the nature of their relationship but there have been no findings by the court because the application has been rejected in limine on the grounds that they are not married to each other. 2. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is article 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2203(NI 22)): (1) An adoption order shall not be made on the application of more than one person except in the circumstances specified in paragraph[s] (2) … (2) An adoption ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons they give, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. LORD HOFFMANN 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. For the reasons she gives, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond. I agree with it, and for the reasons that she gives I would dismiss the appeal. I should like however to add a few comments of my own on the question whether, if a domicile of choice is to be acquired, a person must be lawfully present in the country where he or she intends to remain indefinitely. 4. The answer to this question is, I think, to be found in the distinction to which Lord We...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD My Lords, 1. These two appeals concern that most intractable of problems: how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In White v White [2001] 1 AC 596 your Lordships' House sought to assist judges who have the difficult task of exercising the wide discretionary powers conferred on the court by Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In particular the House emphasised that in seeking a fair outcome there is no place for discrimination between a husband and wife and their respective roles. Discrimination is the antithesis of fairness. In assessing the parties' contributions to the family there should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer. This is a principle of universal application. It is applicable to all marriages. 2. In the White case the capital assets were more than sufficient to meet the parties' financial needs. The two appeals now before the House again involve large am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, Introduction 1. The three appellants, AF, AN and AE, are subject to non-derogating control orders (“control orders”) involving significant restriction of liberty. A control order was first made against AF on 24 May 2006, against AN on 4 July 2007 and against AE on 15 May 2006. Each control order was made pursuant to section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (“the PTA”) on the ground that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant was, or had been, involved in terrorism-related activity. The issue raised by their appeals is whether, in each case, the procedure that resulted in the making of the control order satisfied the appellant’s right to a fair hearing guaranteed by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“article 6”) in conjunction with the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”). Each contends that this right was violated by reason...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and for the reasons that he gives I will dismiss these appeals. LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY My Lords, 2. In about 1975 the first appellant, John McConkey, who was a member of a proscribed organisation, was also in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and committed murder. He was subsequently convicted of offences relating to these activities and sentenced to life imprisonment and other substantial terms of imprisonment, from which he was released on the order of the Secretary of State in about March 1997. 3. In about 1992 the second appellant, Jervis Marks, was in possession of explosives with intent to endanger life or property and was involved in a conspiracy to murder and a conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or property. He was subsequently convicted of offences relating to these activities and senten...
Tag this Judgment!