Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:14:49.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

E.C.H.R. Remedies From a Common Law Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Sir Robert Carnwath
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper, I shall attempt to take a practical view of some of the issues which the common law courts will be facing in the coming months, in granting remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998. I shall be looking at these issues from the viewpoint of a judge, sitting regularly in judicial review cases, and also as Chairman of the Law Commission, which has for many years taken full account of the Convention in its law reform proposals. Notwithstanding the width of the title, I shall concentrate on remedies in damages, since that is the area to which the Law Commission's work has been mainly directed in recent times. I shall be referring to the recent LCD Consultation Paper on proposed rules under the Act.1 I shall steer clear of the difficult subject of the “declaration of incompatibility”, which has been fairly described as “not a legal remedy but a species of booby prize…”.2

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2000 , pp. 517 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Human Rights Act: Rules—Consultation Paper (Lord Chancellor's Dept CP/5/00 March 2000).

2. Geoffrey Marshall, [1999] P.L. 382.

3. Oxford (1999).

4. Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: Human Rights Act 1998, p.145.

5. Caballero v. UK Case 32819/96 Judgment 8.2.00.

6. [1997] 2 All E.R. 762.

7. [1996] 2 All E.R. 35.

8. R. v. Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p. Evans (No. 2) [1998] 4 All E.R. 993.

9. Damages for Non-pecuniary Loss (LC No. 257,1999).

10. Heil v. Rankin23.3.00 (unreported).

11. LC No. 225, 1994.

12. LC No. 257, App B.

13. Girvan v. Inverness Farmers' Dairy [1998] S.L.T. 21.

14. Simpson v. Harland and Woolf [1998] N.I. 432.

15. , Mackintosh and , Holmes: Personal Injury Awards EU and EFTA countries (2nd Edition 1994).Google Scholar

16. McC [1985] A.C. 528.

17. R. v. Manchester City Magistrates, ex p. Davies [1989] Q.B. 631.

18. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. s.108.

19. Benham v. UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 293.

20. Perks and others v. UK Case 25277/94 Judgment 12.10.99.

21. Benham supra at para. 43.

22. , Wade: Administrative Law, 6th Ed., p.349.Google Scholar

23. Applicant's observations to the Commission 13.5.93.

24. , Wade and , Forsyth: Administrative Law, 7th Ed. (1994) p.340.Google Scholar

25. The footnote to this passage refers to the discussion earlier in the book (“All error of law now reviewable”), which examines the “radical conclusions” drawn by Lord Diplock from the Anisminic case [1969] 2 A.C. 147, and recently adopted by the full House of Lords in R. v. Hull University, ex p. Page [1993] A.C. 682.

26. See Maharaj v. A.-G. of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [1979] A.C. 385.

27. Ben Emmerson, who has provided this information.

28. See above.

29. (1991) CA Transcript 158.

30. See especially Barren v. Enfield LBC [1999] 3 All E.R. 193.

31. The rimes, 5.11.98.

32. [1999] 1 W.L.R. 500, CA.

33. See X v. Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 A.C. 633.

34. (1988) 30 E.H.R.R. 449.

35. (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 183.

36. [1983] 2 A.C. 237.

37. Sec Maharaj, supra.

38. [2000] 2 W.L.R. 622.

39. “The Thornton heresy exposed; Financial remedies for breach of public duties”; [1998] Public Law 407.Google Scholar

40. See O'Rourke v. Camden LBC [1997] 3 W.L.R. 86.

41. Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals; LC No. 226 (1994) para 2.32.

42. See Hansard (HL) 22.3.99 WA124.

43. Denning, Lord: What next in the law? (Butterworths, London, 1982).Google Scholar

44. See e.g. James v. UK (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 123, para.46.