Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

One thing that's puzzling me about Blake - why did the case reach the Lords at all?

An appeal seemed very unlikely at the court of appeal stage. Blake had fallen out with his solicitors, and seemed not to have the inclination or the money to hire others. The publishers had been taking on a stake-holder role throughout - they didn't care who they handed the royalties over to, they just wanted to know who that was. The AG had got everything he asked for, and declined to ask for a restitutionary remedy despite the CA's heavy hints that he would get it if he asked. Indeed, Lord Woolf gave the fact that "there is .. no possibility that this case will reach a higher court" as his excuse for his speech on the restitutionary aspects of the case ([1998] 1 All ER 844ab).

So what's this appeal all about? The report says that it was Blake who appealed. Now Blake certainly had nothing to lose (and a remote chance of success) by appealing, but there's absolutely no way that he could pay for it to be argued. An attempt to start an appeal could presumably have been blocked simply on the grounds that it was a waste of money. But very far from doing that, the appeal was heard, and counsel were paid for out of public funds.

So what is going on? A change of heart by the AG? Or a different decision by a new AG? Or did M, Q, P, Z, or whoever's in charge these days, have a quiet word in the AG's ear? Enquiring minds want to know.

Steve Hedley

=================================================
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967

Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
=================================================