![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Legislation (unless by an Act of Parliament,
agreed to by the Commons and the Crown, as well as by their Lordships)
is ultra vires the House of Lords - Beamish v. Beamish (1861) 9 H.L.C.
274 (I.) at 338-339.
Lionel and Gordon both seem to me to be running together
the question whether the Lords can act "prospectively" with the question
whether they can act "legislatively". But these are very different issues.
Or where is it laid down that prospective decision-taking should be confined
to legislatures?
Thus, in their judicial capacity their
Lordships are limited to the induction of the relevant principles from
the previous cases and the application of those principles to the facts
of the case before them, so as to deduce its resolution in favour of
the appellant or the respondent.
A rather narrow view of the lords' function! Surely most
"leading cases" go further, and are "leading" for precisely that reason.
Was Kleinwort Benson merely an exercise in induction? Was Woolwich?
To purport to lay down what will be
invariably satisfactory in the future (though properly continuing to
let past transactions depend on the facts of each case) goes far beyond
these limits. Yet that is what Lord Browne-Wilkinson did in O'Brien
[1994] A.C. 180, at 196; and so I have always taught that, being pretended
legislation, what Lord Hobhouse calls "Lord Browne-Wilkinson's ... carefully
crafted scheme" could not be part of the ratio decidendi of O'Brien.
I would imagine that both lords knew perfectly well that
what they were saying was not ratio. Indeed, they may only have been happy
to speak in such specific terms BECAUSE they knew the detail would not
bind lower courts. This seems more plausible than calling B-W's opinions
"pretended legislation".
I submit such pretensions should cause
no surprise because (as I tried to argue in [2000] R.L.R. at 200 n.65)
the Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234 is
itself so tainted and perhaps may be seen as the root of the evil.
The root of which evil? Of giving pronouncements of the
house of lords too much weight, or too little?
Steve Hedley
=================================================== telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |