|
A v Hoare
[2008] HL
Whole case
here
|
^[Statutory interpretation intention of Parliament precedent use of Practice Statement]
D, known as the Lotto rapist (convicted of several sexual assaults, including rape) attempted to rape V in 1989. He was given a life sentence. At that time, he was not worth suing for damages. In 2004, on day release from prison he bought a lottery ticket and won £7 million. So in 2005, V sued for personal injury, but the claim was rejected by the High Court because her claim had been brought after the six-year limit imposed by the Limitation Act 1980.
Held: A compensation claim against D could go to the High Court for hearing.
The Limitation Act 1980 requires a claimant to bring an action against her assailant for injury within 6 years.
However, Parliament could not have intended to exclude those who had been intentionally injured. Otherwise anomalies would arise such as S v W (child abuse: damages) [1995], in which it was held that a claimant suing out of time was able to pursue a claim against her mother for failing to protect her against sexual abuse by her father, but not a claim against the father himself.
The lower courts considered themselves bound by Stubbings v Webb [1993] HL in which it was held that the flexibility provided for elsewhere in the Act did not apply to a case of deliberate assault, including acts of indecent assault.
The claimant contended that Stubbings v Webb had been wrongly decided and that the House should depart from it. She relied, inter alia, on the Law Commission's report (Law Com No 270) which recommended a uniform regime for personal injuries, whether the claim was made in negligence or trespass to the person.
Courts had a discretion under s 33 of the Act to extend the time in the claimants' favour.
Time ran from when the claimant knew of the injury, which was both a subjective and objective test not whether the claimant considered it serious enough to justify proceedings but whether she would 'reasonably' have done so. Once it had been ascertained what the claimant knew and what she should be treated as having known, the actual claimant dropped out of the picture.
Stubbings v Webb [1993] HL overruled; Letang v Cooper
[1964] approved.
KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (in liq) [2003] All ER (D) 101 (Jun) disapproved.
Claimant won |
|
Adler v George [1964] QBD
|
^ [Statutory interpretation the Golden Rule]
Adler gained access to a RAF station (a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act 1920) and was actually within its boundaries. He obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in relation to the station in the vicinity of a prohibited place He argued that, as he was actually in the prohibited place, he could not be said to be "in the vicinity" of the prohibited place.
Held: The defendant was guilty of the offence because "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to mean on or near the prohibited place.
|
|
Allen v Emerson [1944] QBD |
^[Statutory interpretation ejusdem generis]
Concerning whether a funfair was a place of amusement.
There must be at least two specific words in a list before the general word or phrase for this rule to operate.
Held: The phrase theatre or other place of public entertainment includes a funfair even though it was not of the same kind as theatres.
|
|
Allen, R v [1985] HL |
^[Statutory interpretation extrinsic aids - reports of official commissions and committees]
Recommendations made by committees are often implemented, even if only to a limited degree, by legislation.
Whether such reports could be considered by the court in order to interpret legislation was considered in this case.
Held: the House considered a report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in order to discover the mischief, but it stressed that the report had only been used to determine the mischief to be averted not to interpret the meaning of s.3(1) of the Theft Act 1978.
|
|
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) HL
|
^[Statutory interpretation presumptions, Parliament does not intend to oust the jurisdiction of the courts]
A statute said that "decisions" of the Commission should "not be called in question in any court".
The commission had a duty under the
Foreign Compensation Act 1950 to determine the compensation payable to those whose property had been lost when the Egyptian government nationalised the
Suez Canal in 1956.
Held: Despite this clear and unambiguous provision the court contrived to preserve their jurisdiction, they claimed the decision was ultra vires, and hence void and no "decision" at all.
|
