United Kingdom Supreme Court Research Articles

Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered the requirements of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in the context of a high speed rail scheme to be introduced by parliamentary procedure. The case is important for its detailed analysis of how parliamentary processes relate to the requirements of European Union environmental law. The Supreme Court has also made revealing comments about its view of the proper relationship between the domestic and European legal order.

Evaluation of five single-word term recognition methods on a legal English corpus

Specialised texts are characterised by, amongst other features, the presence of terminology which conveys domain-specific concepts that are essential for the specialist who is interested in analysing such texts. Automatic Term Recognition methods (ATR) are employed to identify those terms automatically, which is especially helpful in view of the large size of corpora nowadays. However, they tend to concentrate on the identification of Multi-Word Terms (MWTs) neglecting Single-Word Terms (SWTs) to a certain extent. This might be related to the greater number of the former found in fields such as biomedicine. However, so far as legal English is concerned, testing has shown that SWTs represent 65.22 percent of the items in the specialised glossary employed for the evaluation of the ATR methods examined herein. This paper presents the evaluation of five SWT recognition methods, namely, those of Chung (2003) , Drouin (2003) , Kit and Liu (2008) , Keywords (2008), and TF-IDF (term frequency-inverse document frequency). These were tested on the United Kingdom Supreme Court Corpus (UKSCC), a legal corpus of 2.6 million words which was compiled for this purpose. The results indicate that Drouin's TermoStat software is the best performing method, achieving 73.45 percent precision on the top 2,000 candidate terms.

Prisoner Disenfranchisement in the United Kingdom and the Scope of EU Law: United Kingdom Supreme Court

On 16 October 2013 the United Kingdom Supreme Court delivered judgment in two conjoined cases that considered the legality of prisoner disenfranchisement. The Court considered both the compatibility of the disenfranchising provisions with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and whether those provisions breached a right to vote acquired by the appellants under European Union law. In a unanimous judgment the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, acknowledging the incompatibility of the relevant legislation with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention but declining to issue a declaration of incompatibility. The Supreme Court further held that EU law does not confer upon EU Citizens a substantive right to vote in European Parliamentary elections.The cases are significant on a number of levels. First, the nuanced arguments advanced before the Court tested the jurisdictional scope of EU law and its capacity to confer rights upon EU Citizens in the absence of cross-border movement. The claims thus held the potential to widen the jurisdiction of EU law along the trajectory outlined by such ECJ case-law as Ruiz Zambrano and Fransson. Secondly, those arguments probed the extent to which the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) imports Strasbourg jurisprudence into EU law and thus creates an alternative mechanism through which to enforce Convention rights. Finally, the decision evidences the constitutional tensions that emanate from discordant interpretations of fundamental rights by national and supranational courts from discordant interpretations of fundamental rights by national and supranational courts.

The 'Glorious Revolution' Down Under: Parliamentary Privilege and the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK) -- Its Application in Criminal Proceedings Against Members of Parliament: England and Australia Compared

One of the enduring constitutional legacies of the Glorious Revolution in 1688 whereby the English forces under William of Orange defeated largely French royalist troops under James II, thereby ending the Stuart monarchies’ use of arbitrary prerogative power, was the Bill of Rights 1689 (UK). Article 7 guaranteed the freedom of speech and immunity from court proceedings in relation to matters connected with Parliamentary proceedings. In 2011, the United Kingdom Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether article 7 or the exclusive inherent of the UK Houses of Parliament prevented prosecution of Members for offences relating to misuse of parliamentary allowances. The Supreme Court concluded that while the allowances were ostensibly provided to allow members to carry out their electoral duties that was not a sufficient basis for denying the of the courts in relation to ordinary criminal offences. The prosecutions were therefore able to proceed.The paper argues that the Supreme Court's decision resolved the possible clash of jurisdictions sensibly and pragmatically, but the Court’s reasoning is far from logically compelling or persuasive. It then notes that currently, similar prosecutions of Members of Parliament have been instituted in Australia. This prompts the question whether Chaytor is relevant in the Australian parliamentary context. Is the privilege and contempt jurisdiction of the Houses of Australian Parliaments necessarily exclusive in such matters? The paper concludes that no easy answer can be given as to whether Chaytor, or, at least, its reasoning, would be followed by Australian courts. Certainly, where an Australian House of Parliament declines to deal with a Member who has misused electoral funds privilege ought not to preclude a criminal prosecution. However, if the House were to institute its own contempt proceedings in relation to the Member, the situation may be far from certain.

No Longer an Island: European Influence on English Civil Procedure

English civil justice is no longer insulated from external influence. But the strength of that influence ranges from fundamental, to moderate, to the symbolic and hence practically insignificant. First, the most fundamental change occurred when European human rights law induced the UK to destroy the long-standing judicial office of the Lord Chancellor and to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Secondly, a moderate degree of influence occurred when the European decision in the Gambazzi case (2009) instructed fellow European courts to be wary of over-severe and disproportionate English sanctions against failure to comply with court orders. Thirdly, the European Directive on Mediation (2008), although symbolically influential in some European jurisdictions, was regarded in England as little more than signal the need for Member states to take seriously mediation. Within England the Directive, although not resisted, did little more than make minor adjustments to established mediation practice in the statistically insignificant field of 'cross-border mediation'.

Supervising the Refugee Convention: Introduction

On 28 and 29 September 2012 the University of Cambridge and University of Michigan co-hosted a Roundtable on the Future of Refugee Convention Supervision at Downing College. The Roundtable, convened by Professor James Hathaway, Director of the Program in Refugee and Asylum Law at the University of Michigan, and Justice Anthony North, Immediate Past President of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges, involved a group of leading jurists and scholars from around the world, including Faculty member Professor David Feldman, Baroness Brenda Hale of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and UNHCR's Director of International Protection, Volker Turk.The Summary Conclusions of the Roundtable and the background papers presented at that Roundtable (prepared by the Cambridge Pro Bono Public) have been published in a Special Feature of the Journal of Refugee Studies (September, 2013). This is the Introduction to that Special Feature. The conclusion can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2327826

Comparative Commentary on Jones v. Kaney

Abstract: This comparative commentary reflects on a number of themes that have emerged from the preceding papers on the liability of expert witnesses in various European systems in the context of the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Jones v. Kaney. It briefly surveys a number of other Common law jurisdictions before turning to the systems covered in the preceding papers. The nature of the relevant liability regime as falling within the general rules or as part of a specific, witness-focussed set of rules, the nature of the fault standard and the local perception of witness liability as problematic are all noted. Finally brief comments as to the future chances for harmonisation in this area are made.

The End of Expert Witnesses Immunity

Abstract: This article examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Jones v. Kaney concerning arguments about the continued existence of an immunity from suit in tort enjoyed by expert witnesses in English law. It sets out the nature and role of the expert witness in the English common law before analysing the matrix of immunities that have attached to those involved in the judicial process throughout English legal history. It then examines the declining scope and protection offered by these immunities and contextualises the decision in Jones as part of this broader trend.

Rubin v. Eurofinance SA (U.K. Sup. Ct.)

In October 2012, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (the Court), by a 4-1 majority, signaled a sweeping return to a more traditional approach to the enforceability of foreign judgments in avoidance in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA. The Court rejected the more liberal rule previously advocated by the Court of Appeal, which gave English courts discretion to allow enforcement of in personam judgments in avoidance where they were related to insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The central issue in Rubin v. Eurofinance was whether an in personam judgment, entered in default but made as part of, or pursuant to, insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings abroad could be enforced at English common law. The Court held that the American default judgment at issue in Rubin was not enforceable in English courts.

Overview: International Law

In the 2011-12 legal year, the United Kingdom Supreme Court decided six cases related to international law. InRe S (a Child),1 the SupremeCourt considered an appeal by amother against an order of the Court of Appeal that she immediately return her child, aged two, to Australia, made pursuant to Article 12 of the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) and to section 1(2) of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which gives effect to the Hague Convention in domestic law. The issue before the Supreme Court Justices was whether they could decline to order the child's return to Australia on the basis of nothing more than disputed allegations of domestic abuse made by the mother. The Supreme Court also elaborated on the correct approach to the subjective perception of risk held by a parent and rejected the Court of Appeal's contention that a parent's anxieties must be realistically and reasonably held. Rather, a defence under Article 13(b) of theHagueConvention could bemade on the basis of the abducting parent's subjective anxieties where those anxieties would be likely to destabilise the parenting of that child to the point at which the child's situation would become intolerable. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. In R (on the application of ST (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,2 the Supreme Court considered whether Article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention applied only to refugees who had been given the right under the domestic law of the contracting state to remain within that state's territory or whether the words `lawfully present in the territory' might be interpreted more broadly. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that `lawfully' `must be taken to refer to what is to be treated as lawful according to the domestic laws of the contracting state'.3 In the case at hand, `lawfulness' was defined by section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, under which the appellant was not deemed to have entered the UK as she was temporarily admitted.

More Construction Controversy

This article discusses two important developments in the law of contract interpretation since the authors’ earlier article in (2011) 28 JCL 101. The first is the decision of the High Court of Australia to decline special leave to appeal from the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Jireh International Pty Ltd v Western Export Services Inc and also to take the unusual step of publishing the reasons for doing so. The second is the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank. While at first sight the two cases seem to be at opposing ends of the literal-contextual spectrum of approaches to contract interpretation, closer analysis reveals that they both affirm principles that are inconsistent with Lord Hoffmann’s well-known restatement in the ICS case insofar as they employ the concept of ambiguity as a gateway or limiting device: in Jireh to limit regard to evidence of surrounding circumstances; in Rainy Sky, to limit regard to considerations of business common sense.

Civil Liability of Health Practitioners for their Forensic Work: Further Erosion of the Witness Immunity Rule Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13; [2011] 2 All ER 671, [2011] 2 WLR 823

There is a clear evolution in the law toward allowing experts to be made more accountable for the discharge of their forensic functions. A particular manifestation of this has been decisions such as General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 1390; [2007] 1 QB 462 holding experts amenable to disciplinary hearings for their forensic reports and also for the testimony that they give in court. However, until recently the witness immunity rule has wholly protected experts from being sued in negligence or defamation for their forensic work. The decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 has commenced to erode the rule, possibly laying the ground work for further erosion. However, such developments are unlikely to occur in Australia in the short to medium term, largely because of the High Court's retention of immunity for barristers, an advantage being that Australia will be able to assess the repercussions of the disincentives that may accrue in the United Kingdom to experts undertaking forensic functions.

Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council: Commercial Interpretation or Relief From a Bad Bargain?

In the 2011 decision Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council, the United Kingdom Supreme Court purported to apply a business common sense approach to the interpretation of an option clause in a lease. In particular, several of the Lords identified that the one possible interpretation of the clause would lead to a "windfall" – a significant financial advantage – for the appellant. Their reasons hinged significantly on their view that this was a consequence inconsistent with commercial sense, which the parties were unlikely to have intended. This article analyses the relevance of a "windfall" in the context of the modern common sense approach to the construction of contracts. It concludes that the Court’s reliance upon a "windfall" of this kind goes beyond the bounds of commercial interpretation and introduces problematic notions of substantive fairness into a business common sense approach to the interpretation of contracts.

United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan

United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan

The Rule of Law in Private Law: A New Animating Ideal for Employment Law?

The rule of law is a key precept in public law. But it often seems to be assumed that the concept should have little traction in the private law domain, where the State is nowhere to be seen. This paper contests that assumption. Defining the rule of law as being concerned with protecting the role of courts in stating the law and applying it to all parties equally, this paper argues that the rule of law has real relevance to private law. In private law, just as in public law, there is a need to prevent parties from placing themselves outside of, or above, the reach of law. After a thumbnail sketch is offered of what the rule of law means in a private law context, attention turns in the second part of this paper to how the rule of law underpins aspects of employment law. It is argued, in particular, that the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s recently-articulated approach to written agreements in the employment law context in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is motivated by a desire to prevent parties from arrogating to themselves (and away from the courts) the power to determine the law: a desire, in other words, to uphold the rule of law. The final part of the paper reflects on how viewing the rule of law as an animating ideal for employment law serves as a useful reminder of the value of dialogue across different parts of the law, and may prove helpful for employment law in particular.

The Mixed Concept of Vindication in Private Law: Private and Public

The Idea of Vindication in Private Law. This piece examines the meaning of vindication in private law. In contrast to some other approaches, it suggests that there is no single, institutional conception in the law of what it means to vindicate rights. Rather, it maintains that the idea is a mixed one - both in the sense that it overarches a number of more discrete, distinct ideas regarding the protection, enforcement and declaration of private rights; and in the sense that these ideas are themselves based on a plurality of private (individualist) and public (social) justifications. Many of the concepts of vindication which private law expresses are also to be found in public law, though the nature of the rights that public law vindicates is different. The discussion takes place in the shadow of the recent decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Walumba Lumba v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 12, where several members of the Court canvassed the possibility of using damages awards purely for the purpose of 'marking' the importance of certain rights. It concludes that there is neither space, nor need in the law for such a category of 'vindicatory' damages - indeed that the category attempts merely to reinvent the wheel. It also raises doubts as to whether public expression and social norm-projection can legitimately be said to constitute purposes (as opposed to merely effects) of private law.

Conservation Issues in the Design of the United Kingdom Supreme Court

This paper describes some of the key thinking behind the proposals to convert Middlesex Guildhall into the new United Kingdom Supreme Court. It describes the background to the project and the arguments put forward to relevant authorities to persuade them that the proposed interventions would enhance the building, be beneficial in the long term and be acceptable within a broad cultural spectrum. In heritage terms, the overall aim was to conserve the building positively for the next generation.One of the key issues that arose during the public consultation period was the degree to which the preservation of historic fabric should determine the design and use of a building being adapted for a major new use. These issues were resolved by taking an holistic approach which emphasized the cultural significance of the new use to balance the level of intervention seen necessary to achieve it.

A Report on Six Seminars About the UK Supreme Court

During the first half of 2008, a series of six seminars was held in the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London on the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Participants included Law Lords and other senior members of the judiciary, practitioners, and academics. This report records the fascinating exchange of views that took place at those unprecedented meetings. Among the themes explored were: the selection of cases; relations of the UK Supreme Court with lower courts and tribunals; procedures and costs; communication methods; the UK Supreme Court's jurisdiction over Scottish matters; and the constitutional framework within which the new court will work.

United Kingdom Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador

United Kingdom Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador

The constitutional and political implications of a United Kingdom Supreme Court

The constitutional and political implications of a United Kingdom Supreme Court are far-reaching. This paper suggests that its establishment represents an increase in judicial independence, both in terms of the individual judge and institutionally. In so doing, it draws attention to the continued infringement of judicial independence, most notably through the use of senior judges to chair inquiries, and to the need for judicial independence to be safeguarded by the judges themselves. It argues that, somewhat paradoxically, the independence of the Court may increase the extent to which it is perceived as a political player and used for political purposes. It also argues that the requirement for greater transparency in the appointment of judges and the processes and decisions of the Court needs to be matched by the improved accountability of the Court and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. The paper ends by speculating on the longer-term constitutional implications of a Supreme Court, suggesting that it could result in the further diminution of parliamentary sovereignty, a more even distribution of power between the constitutional actors and the development of the United Kingdom into a constitutional democracy.