DATABASE OF CASES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Claire O'Brien & Janet Arkinstall *

Please note that the Human Rights Act Research Project concluded its work in September 2002. Although correct at the time of writing, some of the information on these webpages (for example the database of cases under HRA 1998) is therefore historical and should not be considered as representing the present state of the law.

X v Secretary of State for the Home Department
TLR 09/01/01 (2001) 1 WLR 740

07 December 2000

Court of Appeal

Schiemann LJ ,  Sir Swinton Thomas ,  Tuckey LJ

Judicial review (appeal)

Immigration,  Mental health

Article 3

Immigration Act 1971; s86 Mental Health Act 1983

i) MHA 1983 does not (a) restrict Home Secretary’s powers under 1971 Act to remove from England or (b) require MHRT’s prior approval for removal; ii) whether Art 3 is breached by removal to country with lower medical standards will turn on facts of individual cases

Wilson v First County Trust
TLR 06.12.00

23 November 2000

Court of Appeal

Sir Andrew Morritt V-C ,  Chadwick LJ ,  Rix LJ

Appeal

Consumer credit

Article 6,  Protocol 1 Article 1

s127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974

S127(3) breaches Art 6(1) because the absolute bar to enforcement in s127(3) for agreements that do not contain prescribed terms is disproportionate. Though requirement in Prot 1 Art 1 that deprivation of property must be prescribed by law satisfied, s127(3) does not strike fair balance between the community and individual’s rights. Declaration of incompatibility made

Wilson v First County Trust
2001 EWCA Civ 633 TLR 16/5/2001 (2001) 3 WLR 42 (2001) 3 All ER 229 (2001) UKHRR 1175

02 May 2001

Court of Appeal

Chadwick L.J ,  Rix LJ ,  Sir Andrew Morritt V-C

Appeal against regulated agreement enforcement order following adjournment in Wilson v First County Trust (CA 23.11.00, TLR 06.12.00).

Consumer credit

Article 6

i) Whether HRA applies to regulated agreement made prior HRA; ii) whether s127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 is compatible

(i) Pursuant to s6(3) HRA, court to ask in cases after 2 Oct whether order which it is about to make is compatible; (ii) effect of s12(3) is that creditor’s Convention rights are infringed to an extent disproportionate to legitimate aim; (iii) not possible to read s127(3) CCA 1974 in compatible way, therefore court issued a declaration of incompatibility

Wilkey & DAS Systems Ltd v (1) British Broadcasting Corporation & (2) Moyles

09 December 2001

High Court (Queen's Bemch)

Gray J

Interlocutory ruling

Defamation

Art 6(1),  Article 14

ss 4A & 32A Limitation Act 1980

It is not incompatible with Art 6(1) (right to access to a court) for courts to adopt procedural rules which lay down timetables and strict rules to ensure the expeditious conduct of litigation.

Wildman v DPP
LTL 8/2/2001 TLR 8/2/2001 ILR 5/3/2001

23 January 2001

High Court (Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court))

Woolf LCJ ,  Newman J

Appeal by way of case stated

Crime - procedure

Article 5,  Article 6

R v Havering Magistrates’ Court (TLR 07.02.01); Application for extension of custody time limits

Formal disclosure not necessary in an application for extending custody time limits; sufficient that defendant’s interests properly protected, by enabling defendant to test appropriateness of application

WB v H Bauer Publishing Ltd
(2002) EMLR 8

14 June 2001

High Court (QBD)

Eady J

Application to strike out claim pursuant to CPR 3.4

Crime,  Freedom of expression

Article 10,  Article 3,  Article 6,  Article 8

Facts out of A-G’s Reference 3 of 1999 (HL, 14.12.00). Whether claimant acquitted of rape and assault entitled to damages arising out of defendant’s publication of interview with victim, given that HL had in the course of A-G’s reference prohibited claimant’s identification

It would infringe freedom of expression to admit that a defendant should not be subject of media enquiry upon acquittal, because such departure from open justice (Arts 6 and 10) is not “necessary in a democratic society”; there were alternative remedies in libel if media cannot prove allegations

Ward v Hillingdon London Borough Council
ILR 26/3/2001 (2001) HRLR 40

15 February 2001

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Stanley Burton J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Public order

Article 6,  Article 7,  Article 8,  Protocol 1 Article 2

ss77 & 78 Criminal Justice & Public Disorder Act 1994

On facts: 1) removal under s77(1) justified under Art 8(2): Chapman v UK (2001) 10 BHRC 48 (even though no planning issue in play); 2) Prot 1 Art 2 not engaged. Court would not consider compatibility of s77(1) with i) Art 6(2), because Council agreed to proceed instead under s78 CJ&POA 1994 ii) Art 7, because Crown not notified as required under HRA 1998

Wallbank & Others v The Parochial Church Council of Aston Cantlow
(2002) 63 BMLR 154 LTL 18/4/200

17 May 2001

Court of Appeal

Robert Walker LJ ,  Sedley LJ ,  Sir Andrew Morritt VC

Appeal (preliminary issue)

Ecclesiastical

Protocol 1 Article 1

Chancel Repairs Act 1932

Common law liabilities of lay rector of parish church

1) Parochial Church Council is a public authority under s6 HRA 1998; 2) modern liability of lay owners of formerly glebe land to defray unmet costs of repairs to chancel of parish church is form of taxation prohibited by a) Art 1 of Prot 1 as arbitrary; b) Art 14 ECHR as unjustifiably discriminatory, as regards other landowners

Wainwright and Wainwright v Home Office
2001 EWCA Civ 2081 TLR 04/01/2002

20 December 2001

Court of Appeal

Woolf LCJ ,  Buxton LJ ,  Mummery LJ

Appeal (from County Court)

Privacy

Article 8

s 47 Prison Act 1954

rr 39 (1) and 86 (1) Prison Rules

Where alleged that strip search of visitors to prison, taking place pre-2 Oct 2000 was in breach of Art 8, held: 1) No tort of invasion of privacy existed under the common law; 2) given s 3 HRA 1998’s non-retrospectivity, it was not possible to create, through statutory reinterpretation, a tort of breach of privacy arising out of pre-2 Oct 2000 events; 3) if facts occurred post-2 Oct 2000, manner of search would have grounded right to relief for breach of Art 8

Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others
(2001) Fam 430 (2001) 2 WLR 1038 (2001) 1 All ER 908 (2001) HRLR 19 (2001) UKHRR 628 TLR 16/01/2001 2001 WL 14890

08 January 2001

High Court (Family Division)

Dame Butler-Sloss P

Applications for injunctions

Confidence,  Freedom of expression,  Privacy

Article 10,  Article 2,  Article 3,  Article 8

Common law of confidentiality

(i)Courts obliged by HRA to ensure ECHR compliance even in private law proceedings, but no free standing ECHR application in private law cases, court’s jurisdiction must be based upon existing causes of action; (ii)law of confidence can be extended to grant injunctions where evidence demonstrates real possibility of serious injury/death and no alternative means of prevention other than injunctions on Press

Varsani & others v Jesani & others
LTL 13/9/2001

31 July 2001

High Court (Chancery Division)

Patten J

Determination of scheme under s13 Charities Act 1993

Charities

Article 14,  Article 9

s13 Charities Act 1993

Decision discussing role of Convention rights in court’s conduct of s13 CA 1993 discretionary exercise when dividing religious charity’s assets

UK Coal Mining Ltd v Secretary of State for Local Government, Transport and the Regions
2001 EWHC Admin 912 LTL 28/11/2001

23 October 2001

High Court (Administrative Court)

Ouseley J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Planning

Article 6

n/a

Obiter: Art 6’s requirement for “speedy determination” breached where Secretary of State failed at review hearing to advance any particular reasons for 32-month delay during determination of called-in planning application

Tucker v Secretary of State for Social Security
2001 EWCA Civ 1646

08 November 2001

Court of Appeal

Waller ,  Mantell LJ ,  Thorpe LJ

Judicial Review (appeal)

Social/welfare benefits

Article 14,  Article 8

ss 123 (1), 130 & 137 (2) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1987

reg. 7 Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987

Arts 8/14 ECHR not breached by regulation which disentitled claimant, as a tenant liable to pay rent to father of her child (from whom she was estranged) from receipt of housing benefit: any discrimination (compared with person with not responsible for child of landlord) legitimate and proportionate response to prevent abuse

Totalise Plc v (1) Motley Fool Limited & (2) Interactive Investor Limited
2001 EWCA Civ 1897 TLR 10/01/02

19 December 2001

Court of Appeal

Aldous LJ ,  Arden LJ ,  Sedley LJ

Appeal

Civil procedure

Article 10,  Article 8

Civil Procedure Rules

Courts, as s 6 public authorities, must take care not to make orders (here, costs, for failure to disclose identity of allegedly defaming website correspondent) that unjustifiably invade Art 8 right of individual to respect for private life, especially if victim is not before the court

Thomas v (1) News Group Newspapers Ltd & (2) Hughes
TLR 25/7/2001 (2002) EMLR 4

18 July 2001

Court of Appeal

Lord Phillips MR ,  Mustill LJ ,  Parker LJ

Appeal (against County Court refusal to strike out )

Freedom of expression,  Public order

Article 10

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

No breach of Art 10, or its requirement of legal certainty in relation to any interference with Art 10(1) in holding that publication of newspaper articles reasonably foreseeably causing distress through racist abuse within HA 1997’s definition of harassment

Theakston v MGN Limited
2002 EWHC (QB) 137

14 February 2002

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Ouseley J

Application for interim injunction to restrain publication

Privacy

Article 10,  Article 8

tort of breach of confidence

1) Effect of Art 8 and s 12(4) HRA is not to create a new tort of breach of privacy, but rather, in view of s 6(1) duty on courts, to inform the content the existing tort of breach of confidence; 2) no duty of confidence arises per se from acts of sexual intimacy

TH v SH, sub nom Re CMH & LH (Children) (Contact Order)
TLR 10/8/01 (2002) 1 FLR 22

22 June 2001

High Court (Family Division)

Wall J

Judicial Review (Substantive Hearing)

Family

Article 8

s 1(3) Children Act 1989

Every order under s 8 Children Act 1989 represents some measure of interference by a public authority with the right to respect for family life. However, proper application of the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Act was equivalent to the balancing exercise required in the application of article 8

Terry v Hoyer
2001 EWCA Civ 678

04 May 2001

Court of Appeal

Pill LJ ,  Arden J ,  Dyson LJ

Appeal against order striking out of claim for unfair dismissal

Civil procedure - vexatious litigation

Article 6

Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Rules 1993

Article 6 made no difference to the approach that was to be adopted in strike out proceedings. The HRA created no need for any radically different approach to vexatious claims

Taylor and another v Lawrence and another
2001 EWCA Civ 119

25 January 2001

Court of Appeal

Gibson LJ ,  Chadwick LJ ,  Keene LJ

Appeal

Land

Art 6(1)

Judicial bias

Applying the test of objective bias (DGFT v PAGB, CA, 21.12.00, no danger of bias breaching Art. 6 (1) where judge had his will prepared by one party’s solicitors

T v Mental Health Review Tribunal & G (Interested Party)

22 February 2002

High Court (QBD)

Scott Baker J

Judicial review (substantive hearing)

Mental health

Article 2,  Article 8

MHRT Rules SI 1983/942, r21(5)

Pickering v Liverpool Daily Post & Another [1991] 2 AC 370

Where former partner (T, who was not party to the MHRT proceedings) of a patient (G) detained under ss37 & 41 MHA 1983, sought disclosure of MHRT’s reasons for, and conditions attached to, its decision to grant G deferred conditional discharge: i) Art 2 not engaged: even if G posed risk to T's life, this fell far short of threshold for positive obligations under Osman v UK ([1999] 1 FLR 193); ii) Art 8 not engaged: insufficient evidence before court to establish minimum level of severity for Art 8 engagement reached

Stevens v School of Oriental Studies and Others
TLR 2/2/2001

16 November 2000

High Court (Chancery Division)

Pumfrey J

Application for permission to appeal against order staying proceedings

Civil procedure

Article 6

Right to relitigate without having paid costs of earlier action

Not inconsistent with Art 6(1) to prevent further litigation over same matter until costs occasioned by original unsuccessful action that had been struck out have been paid

St Merryn Meat Ltd & Others v Hawkins & Others
LTL 2/7/2001

29 June 2001

High Court

Geoffrey Vos QC

Application to discharge interim injunctions

Civil procedure

Article 8

Civil procedure

Art 8(1) rights violated by interception of home telephone calls by private actor non-disclosure of method of interception violating Art 8 rights was material, justifying discharge of without notice interim freezing orders

St John v (1) United States of America (2) Governor of HMP Brixton
2001 EWHC Admin 543 TLR 10/08/01 (2001) 2 WLR 221

02 July 2001

High Court (Administrative)

Brooke LJ ,  Harrison L

Habeas Corpus

Extradition

Other Article

Article 1 Protocol 6

Para. 20 (1) Schedule 1 Extradition Act 1989

Order in Council – The United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976

While Secretary of State’s decision as to extradition was pending, and he had not yet sought or obtained assurance from requesting state that death penalty would not be carried out, it was premature to argue that Art 1 Prot 6 required reinterpretation of ‘extradition crime’, so as to exclude a potential death penalty offence

St Brice & Another v Southwark London Borough Council
TLR 6/8/2001 ILR 12/1/2001

17 July 2001

Court of Appeal

Kennedy LJ ,  Chadwick LJ ,  Rix LJ

Appeal (County Court; application to set aside warrant for possession)

Housing

Article 14,  Article 6,  Article 8

Housing Act 1985

No breach of Arts 6, 8, 14 in issue of warrant of possession by court administrative staff without notice to tenant (because court required to make order for possession at hearing of which tenant has notice, and no separate determination of civil rights under Art 6 in enforcement of earlier decision); no discrimination contrary to Art 14 between tenants facing possession proceedings in High Court / County Court

Spinnato v (1) Governor of HMP Brixton (2) Government of Italy
2001 EWHC Admin 1124

20 December 2001

High Court (Queen's Bench Division)

Kennedy LJ ,  Hallett J

Habeas corpus

Extradition

Article 6,  Article 8

ss 6 (2) & 11(3) Extradition Act 1989

1) Art 8 added nothing to the wording of s 11(3) EA 1989’s meaning of ‘oppressive to return’, as court was already required to have regard to all relevant circumstances, including existence of family life; 2) Art 6 (3) (d) not violated by trial of absent accused given opportunity to be present