Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>
Sender:
Steve Hedley
Date:
Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:32:42
Re:
Etridge and the constitution

 

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

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

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

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


<== Previous message       Back to index        Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !