BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

The Law Commission


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Damages Under the Human Rights Act (Report) [2000] EWLC 266 (October 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2000/266.html
Cite as: [2000] EWLC 266

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


JISCBAILII__Law_Reform_Report

     

    The Law Commission
    And The Scottish Law Commission

    (LAW COM No 266)
    (SCOT LAW COM No 180)

    DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

    Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law
    Commissions Act 1965
    Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty
    Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers
    October 2000
    Cm 4853
    SE/2000/182
    The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law.
    The Law Commissioners are:
    The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman
    Professor Hugh Beale
    Miss Diana Faber
    Mr Charles Harpum
    Judge Alan Wilkie, QC
    The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ.
    The Scottish Law Commissioners are:
    The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman
    Mr Patrick S Hodge, QC
    Professor Gerard Maher
    Professor Kenneth G C Reid
    Professor Joseph M Thomson
    The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr Norman Raven and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR.
    The terms of this report were agreed on 21 August 2000.
    The text of this report is available on the Internet at:
    http://www.lawcom.gov.uk
    http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    The Human Rights Act 1998 provides citizens of the United Kingdom with important protection for certain of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention rights"). Section 7 of the Act gives a new claim against public authorities where the public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with one or more of those rights. The claim may be brought by a victim of the public authority's action, and the remedies sought may include damages in compensation for the violation of the Convention rights. Section 8 of the Human Rights Act provides that before a court may award damages it must be satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made. This is the test applicable to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg under Article 41 of the Convention, and section 8 also provides that courts in this country must take into account the principles applied by the Strasbourg Court in deciding whether to award compensation for a violation of the Convention, and the amount of any award.
    This report contains an article by article description of the case-law, and an analysis of the practice, of the Strasbourg Court in relation to the award of compensation. It also considers when damages may be awarded for violations of Article 5 of the Convention by judicial acts.
    The primary principle governing the award of compensation by that Court is that the victim should, as far as possible, be placed in the same position as if the violation of his or her rights had not occurred. We discuss how that principle is applied by the Strasbourg Court, and when it requires the award of damages to the victim.
    We then consider what the implications are for the award of damages by courts in the United Kingdom in relation to a claim brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. We conclude that in most areas the approach of the Strasbourg Court is not significantly different to the rules currently applied by courts in this country to the award of damages.
    There are some points at which the practice of the Strasbourg Court does differ from courts in this country. For example, the Strasbourg Court does not award punitive damages. In contrast, the Strasbourg Court has awarded compensation in relation to some forms of non-pecuniary, or intangible, loss - such as for loss of relationship between parent and child - which have not yet been recognised by courts in this country. Following the practice of the Strasbourg Court may require further development of the law by courts in this country.
    Subject to these points the implementation of the Human Rights Act will not require major changes to the law on damages. The Strasbourg Court seeks to compensate applicants under the Convention fully for any loss which they can prove resulted from a violation of the Convention. Where courts in this country have established appropriate levels of compensation for particular types of loss in relation to claims in tort or delict, it would seem appropriate for the same rules to be used in relation to a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.
    THE LAW COMMISSION
    THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
    DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
    CONTENTS
      Para
    PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1-1.12
    1. THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.1-1.2
    2. NATURE OF THE REPORT 1.3-1.5
    3. COMPARATIVE WORK 1.6
    4. THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 1.7-1.10
    5. FOREIGN CURRENCY CONVERSIONS 1.11
    6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1.12
    SECTION A: GENERAL PRINCIPLES 2.1-5.7
    PART II: REMEDIES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 2.1-2.33
    1. INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2.1
    2. THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 2.2-2.3
    3. OUTUNE OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 2.4-2.7
    4. DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 8 2.8-2.9
        (1) The statutory provision 2.8
        (2) Principal features 2.9
    5. PRELIMINARY MATTERS 2.10-2.25
        (1) Public authorities 2.11-2.14
        (2) Who may bring proceedings under section 6? 2.15
        (3) The court must have power to award damages in civil proceedings 2.16-2.18
        (4) "Just and appropriate" remedies 2.19-2.21
        (5) Relationship of claims under section 6 to other causes of action 2.22-2.25
    6. SECTION 9(3): LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF JUDICIAL ACTS 2.26-2.27
    7. SCOTLAND. WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND 2.28-2.33
        (1) Scotland 2.29-2.31
        (2) Wales 2.32
        (3) Northern Ireland 2.33
    PART III: JUST SATISFACTION IN STRASBOURG 3.1-3.78
    1. INTRODUCTION 3.1-3.3
    2. GENERAL POINTS ON STRASBOURG PRACTICE 3.4-3.30
        (1) Absence of clear principles 3.4-3.15
        (2) The pre-conditions imposed by Article 41 3.16-3.18
        (3) General aim of restitutio in integrum 3.19-3.21
        (4) The heads of damages recoverable 3.22
            (a) Introduction 3.22
            (b) Pecuniary loss 3.23-3.25
            (c) Non-pecuniary loss 3.26-3.28
            (d) Costs and expenses 3.29-3.30
    3. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UNDER ARTICLE 41 3.31-3.57
        (1) Other measures in response to a violation 3.31-3.37
        (2) Just satisfaction by a finding of violation 3.38-3.43
        (3) Degree of loss 3.44
        (4) Seriousness of the violation 3.45-3.46
        (5) Conduct of the respondent 3.47-3.48
            (a) Offensive conduct of the State 3.49-3.51
            (b) Record of previous violations by the State 3.52-3.53
        (6) Conduct of the applicant 3.54-3.57
    4 CAUSATION 3.58-3.69
        (1) Need for clear causal link 3.58
        (2) Speculative losses 3.59
            (a) Strict causation 3.60-3.61
            (b) Loss or opportunities 3.62-3.65
            (c) Attempts to reconcile the two approaches 3.66-3.69
    5 INTEREST 3.70-3.75
        (1) Interest as a pecuniary loss 3.70-3.74
        (2) Default Interest 3.75
    6. CONCLUSION 3.76-3.78
    PART IV: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER THE COMMON LAW 4.1-4.97
    1. INTRODUCTION 4.1-4.2
    2. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE STRASBOURG PRINCIPLES 4.3-4.11
        (1) Must the principles be followed? 4.4-4.5
        (2) Principles not practice 4.6-4.11
    3. COMMON LAW ANALOGIES 4.12-4.26
        (1) Comparisons with claims in tort 4.12-4.15
        (2) Constitutional rights in the Commonwealth 4.16-4.20
        (3) Use of common law analogies 4.21-4.26
    4. PRINCIPLES FOR THE DOMESTIC COURTS 4.27-4.32
    5. THE STRASBOURG PRINCIPLES AND THE APPLICATION OF SECTION S 4.33-4.58
        (1) The court's discretion to make an award 4.33
        (2) No damages if other remedy provides just satisfaction 4.36-4.39
        (3) The consequences of the decision 4.40-4.42
        (4) Exercise of the general discretion 4.43-4.45
            (a) Where there is an equivalent rule in English law 4.46-4.49
            (b) Cases with no obvious equivalent 4.50-4.53
            (c) Analogies to the European Court of Justice 4.54-4.58
    6. HEADS OF LOSS 4.59-4.77
        (1) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss 4.59-4.60
        (2) Pecuniary loss 4.61-4.62
        (3) Non-pecuniary loss 4.63-4.68
        (4) Anxiety, distress and frustration 4.69-4.70
        (5) Exemplary or punitive damages 4.71-4.73
        (6) Nominal damages 4.74
        (7) Restitutionary damages 4.75-4.77
    7. CAUSATION 4.78-4.87
        (1) Causal link 4.78-4.81
        (2) Apportioning responsibility where judicial acts are involved 4.82-4.84
        (3) Speculative losses 4.85-4.87
    8. OTHER ISSUES 4.88-4.91
        (1) Concurrent liability 4.88
        (2) Interest 4.89-4.91
    9. CONCLUSION 4.92-4.97
    PART V: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER SCOTS LAW 5.1-5.7
    1. INTRODUCTION 5.1-5.2
    2. THE DISCRETION TO AWARD DAMAGES 5.3-5.4
    3. HOW QUANTUM SHOULD BE ASSESSED 5.5
    4. CONCLUSION 5.6-5.7
    SECTION B: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER INDIVIDUAL
    ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION
    6.1-6.240
    PART VI: ARTICLE BY ARTICLE ANALYSIS 6.1-6.240
    1. INTRODUCTION 6.1-6.2
    2. ARTICLE 2 6.3-6.14
    3. ARTICLE 3 6.15-6.25
        (1) Threatened violations 6.16-6.19
        (2) Actual violations 6.20-6.25
    4. ARTICLE 4 6.26
    5. ARTICLE 5 6.27-6.80
        (1) Article 5(1) 6.29-6.42
            (a) Pecuniary loss 6.29-6.30
            (b) Non-pecuniary loss 6.31-6.42
        (2) Article 5(2) 6.43
        (3) Article 5(3) 6.44-6.64
            (a) The right to be brought promptly before a judge 6.45-6.51
                (i) Pecuniary loss 6.45-6.46
                (ii) Non-pecuniary loss 6.47-6.51
            (b) The right to release pending trial 6.52-6.58
                (i) Pecuniary loss 6.52-6.53
                (ii) Non-pecuniary loss 6.54-6.58
            (c) The right to trial within a reasonable time 6.59-6.64
        (4) Article 5(4) 6.65-6.77
            (a) Pecuniary loss 6.66-6.71
            (b) Non-pecuniary loss 6.72-6.77
        (5) Article 5(5) 6.78-6.80
    6. ARTICLE 6 6.81-6.146
        (1) Access to a court 6.84-6.93
            (a) Pecuniary loss 6.85-6.87
            (b) Non-pecuniary loss 6.88-6.93
        (2) Independence and impartiality 6.94-6.99
            (a) Pecuniary loss 6.95-6.97
            (b) Non-pecuniary loss 6.98-6.99
        (3) Public hearing 6.100-6.101
        (4) Equality of arms 6.102-6.106
        (5) Duty to give reasons 6.107-6.109
        (6) Self-incrimination 6.110-6.112
        (7) Unreasonable length of proceedings 6.113-6.128
            (a) Civil proceedings 6.114-6.124
            (b) Criminal proceedings 6.125-6.128
        (8) Presumption of innocence 6.129-6.131
        (9) Right to be informed of criminal charges 6.132-6.134
        (10) Right to a defence 6.135-6.140
            (a) Pecuniary loss 6.136
            (b) Non-pecuniary loss 6.137-6.140
        (11) Examination of witnesses 6.141-6.144
        (12) Right to an interpreter 6.145-6.146
    7. ARTICLE 7 6.147-6.151
    8. ARTICLE 8 6.152-6.189
        (1) Interference with correspondence 6.154-6.158
        (2) Children in public care 6.159-6.164
        (3) Adoption and custody disputes 6.165-6.166
        (4) Telephone tapping and searching of premises 6.167-6.171
        (5) Immigration cases 6.172-6.174
        (6) Article 8 and sexual orientation and identity 6.175-6.182
        (7) Environmental claims 6.183-6.184
        (8) Miscellaneous cases 6.185-6.189
    9. ARTICLE 9 6.190-6.192
    10. ARTICLE 10 6.193-6.203
        (1) Pecuniary loss 6.194-6.201
        (2) Non-pecuniary loss 6.202-6.203
    11. ARTICLE 11 6.204-6.210
    12. ARTICLE 12 6.211-6.212
    13. ARTICLE 14 6.213-6.222
        (1) Discriminatory taxation regimes 6.215-6.216
        (2) Discriminatory social security regimes 6.217
        (3) Discriminatory immigration regimes 6.218
        (4) Discriminatory application of retrospective laws 6.219-6.221
        (5) Discriminatory civil procedure rules 6.222
    14. ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO 1 6.223-6.235
        (1) Expropriation 6.225-6.227
        (2) Frustrated Court Judgments 6.228-6.230
        (3) Delayed proceedings 6.231-6.234
        (4) Destruction of property 6.235
    15. ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL 1 6.236-6.238
    16. ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL 1 6.239-6.240
    APPENDIX A: DAMAGES FOR JUDICIAL ACTS A.1-A.31
    I. INTRODUCTION A.1-A.3
    2. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM A.4-A.8
    3. STRASBOURG CASE-LAW A.9-A.22
        (1) Benham v United Kingdom A.10-A.12
        (2) Void/voidable A.13-A.15
        (3) Perks and others v United Kingdom A.16-A.22
    4. COMMENTARY A.23-A.30
    5. CONCLUSION A.31
    APPENDIX B: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY B

    TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    In this Report, wherever possible we give references to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in both the official series of reports and the European Human Rights Reports, a commercial English series (published by Sweet and Maxwell). Up to 1996, the relevant official publication was called "Series A (Judgments and Decisions)". This we cite in the form: Brogan v United Kingdom A 145-B (1988); that is Series A (Judgments and Decisions), volume 145, case B (ie the second case reported in that volume; if there is no letter, the volume contains a single judgment). The year is that of judgment. After 1996, the official series became "Reports of Judgments and Decisions". Reports in this series are cited in the form: Assenov v Bulgaria 1998-VIII p 3264; that is the 1998 volume, part VIII, at page 3264. Reports in the European Human Rights Reports are in the usual form for English law Reports published in consecutively numbered annual volumes (but we do not give a date).
    More recent reports of the European Court of Human Rights are referred to by the application number and the date of judgment: Ilhan v Turkey Application no 22277/93, 27 June 2000. Transcripts of these reports are obtainable from the European Court of Human Rights website (http://www.echr.coe.int).
    Decisions and reports of the European Commission of Human Rights are similarly given in both the official series and the EHRR. The official series is called "Decisions and Reports" and is published by the Council of Europe. Citations are in the form Schertenlieb v Switzerland (1980) 23 DR 137 (volume 23, page 137).
    A and others v Denmark 1996-I p 3264, 22 EHRR 458 6.122 n 188;
    A v France A 277-B (1993), 17 EHRR 462 6.168 n 274;
    A v United Kingdom 1998-VI p 2692, 27 EHRR 611 6.24
    Abdoella v Netherlands A 248-A (1992), 20 EHRR 585 6.128 n 201;
    6.128 n 202
    Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom A 94 (1985), 7 EHRR 471 3.26 n 53;
    6.172 n 283;
    6.218
    ADT v United Kingdom Application no 35765/97, 31 July 2000 3.37 n 76;
    4.40 n 67;
    6.177-178
    AGOSI v United Kingdom A 108 (1986), 9 EHRR 1 2.15 n 35
    Ahmed v Austria 1996-VI p 2195, 24 EHRR 278 6.19
    Ahmet Sadik v Greece 1996-V p 1652, 24 EHRR 323 6.41 n 64
    Airey v Ireland A 32 (1981), 2 EHRR 305 (merits); A 41 (1981) 3 EHRR 592 (just satisfaction) 6.85
    Akdivar v Turkey 1996-IV p 1192, 23 EHRR 143 (merits); 1998-II p 711 (just satisfaction) 3.47;
    6.235
    Aksoy v Turkey 1996-VI p 2260, 23 EHRR 553 3.23 n 37;
    3.45;
    6.22
    Albert and Le Compte v Belgium A 68 (1983), 13 EHRR 415 (just satisfaction) 3.31 n 61;
    4.74 n 139;
    6.100 n 161
    Allan Jacobsson v Sweden A 163 (1989), 12 EHRR 56 6.87 n 138
    Allenet de Ribemont v France A 308 (1995), 20 EHRR 557 3.49 n 99;
    4.18 n 30;
    6.131
    Amuur v France 1996-III p 826, 22 EHRR 533 6.33
    AO v Italy Application 22534/93, 30 May 2000 6.224 n 374;
    6.224 n 376
    Artico v Italy A 37 (1980), 3 EHRR 1 6.138
    Assenov v Bulgaria 1998-VIII p 3264, 28 EHRR 652 3.46 n 93;
    6.25
    Averill v United Kingdom Application no 36408/97, 6 June 2000 6.137 n 219
    Aydin v Turkey 1997-VI p 1866, 25 EHRR 251 3.26 n 46;
    3.46 n 93;
    5.6 n 30; 6.20
    Ayuntamiento de M v Spain (1991) 68 DR 209 2.15 n 36
    B v Austria A 175 (1990), 13 EHRR 20, 6.126
    B v France A 232-C (1992), 16 EHRR 1 6.182
    Baggetta v Italy A 119 (1987), 10 EHRR 325 6.127 n 200
    Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain A 285-C (1994) 3.19 n 30;
    3.33 n 67;
    4.39 n 65;
    6.101
    Barthold v Germany A 90 (1985), 7 EHRR 383 6.202 n 332
    Baskaya and Okçuoglu v Turkey Application nos 23536/94 and 24408/94, 8 July 1999 3.23 n 39;
    5.6 n 30;
    6.151;
    6.198;
    6.203
    Beaumartin v France A 296-B (1994), 19 EHRR 485 6.98 n 157
    Beldjoudi v France A 234-A (1992), 14 EHRR 801 6.172 n 283
    Belilos v Switzerland A 132 (1988), 10 EHRR 466 3.31 n 61
    Benham v United Kingdom 1996-III p 738, 22 EHRR 293 2.27 n 65,
    6.137;
    6.140;
    A.2 n 4;
    A.9- A.11,
    A.18,
    A.25;
    A.27.
    Bergens Tidende v Norway Application no 26132/95, 2 May 2000 3.71 n 133;
    6.199
    Berrehab v Netherlands A 138 (1988), 11 EHRR 322 6.173
    Bezicheri v Italy A 164 (1989), 12 EHRR 210 6.66 n 111
    Bodén v Sweden A 125-B (1987), 10 EHRR 367 6.86
    Boner v United Kingdom A 300-B (1994), 19 EHRR 246 6.137 n 217
    Bönisch v Austria A 92 (1985), 9 EHRR 191 (merits); A 103 (1986), 13 EHRR 409 (just satisfaction) 3.22 n 34;
    3.63;
    6.97;
    6.98
    Borgers v Belgium A 214 (1991), 15 EHRR 92 6.104 n 167
    Bowman v United Kingdom 1998-I p 105, 26 EHRR 1 6.202 n 332
    Bozano v France A 111 (1986), 9 EHRR 297 (merits); A 124-F (1987), 13 EHRR 428 (just satisfaction) 3.49;
    6.37 - 6.38
    Bricmont v Belgium A 158 (1989), 12 EHRR 217 6.104 n 167
    Brincat v Italy A 249-A (1992), 16 EHRR 591 6.46 n 74
    Brogan v United Kingdom A 145-B (1989), 11 EHRR 117 (merits); A 152-B (1989), 13 EHRR 439 (just satisfaction) 6.48;
    6.80 n 134
    Brozicek v Italy A 167 (1989), 12 EHRR 371 3.31 n 61,
    6.133
    Bulut v Austria 1996-II p 346, 24 EHRR 84 6.104 n 167
    Caballero v United Kingdom Application no 32819/96, 8 February 2000 3.17 n 23,
    3.41 n 85,
    6.58,
    6.80 n 134
    Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom A 48 (1982), 4 EHRR 293 2.15 n 38,
    6.237 - 6.238
    Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom A 80 (1984), 7 EHRR 165 3.44 n 89,
    6.100 n 161,
    6.156 n 248
    Campbell v United Kingdom A 233-A (1992), 15 EHRR 137 6.156 n 248
    Canea Catholic Church v Greece 1997-VIII p 2843, 27 EHRR 521 6.222
    Castells v Spain A 236 (1992), 14 EHRR 445 6.200 n 323,
    6.202
    Cesky v Czech Republic Application no 33644/96, 6 June 2000 3.41 n 85,
    6.62 - 6.63
    Chahal v United Kingdom 1996-V p 1831, 23 EHRR 413 6.18, 6.76
    Ciulla v Italy A 148 (1989), 13 EHRR 346 6.35
    Comingersoll SA v Portugal Application no 35382/97, 6 April 2000 3.28,
    6.123
    Confédération des Syndicats Médicaux Français v France (1986) 47 DR 225 2.15 n 46
    Crémieux v France A 256-B (1993), 16 EHRR 357 6.170
    Curley v United Kingdom Application no 32340/96, 28 March 2000 3.41 n 85,
    6.73
    Darby v Sweden A 187 (1990), 13 EHRR 774 3.71,
    6.215 n 357
    Darnell v United Kingdom A 272 (1993), 18 EHRR 205 6.117
    De Cubber v Belgium A 124-B (1987), 13 EHRR 422 (just satisfaction) 3.60,
    6.96 n 150,
    6.98
    De Haan v Netherlands 1997-IV p 1379, 26 EHRR 417 6.99 n 159,
    6.99 n 160
    De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium 1997-I p 198, 25 EHRR 1 6.202
    De Jong, Baijet and Van den Brink v Netherlands A 77 (1984), 8 EHRR 20 6.47 n 75
    De Moor v Belgium A 292-A (1994), 18 EHRR 372 6.98 n 157
    De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1) A 12 (1971), 1 EHRR 373 3.21 n 32,
    6.67
    De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 2) A 14 (1972), 1 EHRR 438 3.17 n 25,
    3.17 n 29,
    6.67
    Delta v France A 191-A (1990), 16 EHRR 574 3.63 n 121,
    6.105,
    6.144
    Deumeland v Germany A 100 (1986), 8 EHRR 448 2.15 n 45,
    6.121
    Diennet v France A 315-B (1995), 21 EHRR 554 6.100 n 161
    Dombo Beheer BV v Netherlands A 274-A (1993), 18 EHRR 213 6.103 - 6.104,
    Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain A 240 (1992), 14 EHRR 745 A.28 n 62
    Dudgeon v United Kingdom A 45 (1981), 4 EHRR 149 (merits), A 59 (1983), 5 EHRR 573 (just satisfaction) 2.15 n 38,
    3.37,
    4.42 n 70,
    4.51 n 89,
    6.175,
    6.176,
    6.177 n 292
    Duinhof and Duijf v Netherlands A 79 (1984), 13 EHRR 478 6.47
    Eckle v Germany (Article 50) A 65 (1983), 13 EHRR 556 3.57 n 110,
    3.58, 6.128
    EDC v United Kingdom [1998] BCC 370 4.83,
    4.84
    Engel and Others v Netherlands (No 2) A 22 (1976), 1 EHRR 706 4.74 n 139,
    6.36 n 55,
    6.100 n 161
    Eriksson v Sweden A 156 (1989), 12 EHRR 183 6.162
    Erkalo v Netherlands 1998-VI p 2464, 28 EHRR 509 6.29 n 42,
    6.32
    Ezelin v France A 202 (1991), 14 EHRR 362 6.207
    F v Switzerland A 128 (1987), 10 EHRR 411 3.31 n 62,
    6.212
    FCB v Italy A 208-B (1991), 14 EHRR 909 6.137 n 217
    Findlay v United Kingdom 1997-I p 263, 24 EHRR 221 6.96 n 150,
    6.99
    Fischer v Austria A 312 (1995), 20 EHRR 349 6.100 n 161
    Foti v Italy (Article 50) A 69 (1983), 13 EHRR 568 6.126 n 198
    Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom A 182 (1990), 13 EHRR 157 (merits); A 202 (1991), 14 EHRR 108 (just satisfaction) 3.38 n 78,
    6.35,
    6.80 n 134
    Fredin v Sweden A 192 (1991), 13 EHRR 784 6.93 n 147
    Frydlender v France Application no 30979/96, 27 June 2000 6.119 n 184
    Funke v France A 256-A (1993), 16 EHRR 297 6.111,
    6.170
    Gaskin v United Kingdom A 160 (1989), 12 EHRR 36 6.163
    Gautrin v France 1998-III p 1009, 28 EHRR 196 6.99 n 159,
    6.99 n 160
    Gaygusuz v Austria 1996-IV p 1129, 23 EHRR 364 4.72 n 135,
    6.217
    Georgiadis v Greece 1997-III p 949, 24 EHRR 606 6.109
    Gillow v United Kingdom A 109 (1986), 11 EHRR 335 (merits); A124-C (1987) (just satisfaction) 6.188
    Goddi v Italy A 76 (1984), 6 EHHR 457 6.139
    Golder v United Kingdom A 18 (1975), 1 EHRR 524 3.38,
    3.39 n 83,
    5.4 n 5,
    6.155
    Granger v United Kingdom A 174 (1990), 12 EHRR 469 6.136 n 215
    Grigoriades v Greece 1997-VII p 2575, 27 EHRR 464 6.200 n 323
    Guerra v Italy 1998-I p 210, 26 EHRR 357 6.184
    Guillemin v France 1997-I p 149, 25 EHRR 435 (merits), 1998-VI p 2544 (just satisfaction) 3.32 n 64,
    6.124, 6.234
    Guincho v Portugal A 81 (1984), 7 EHRR 223 6.233 n 396
    Güleç v Turkey 1998-IV p 1698, 28 EHRR 121 5.6 n 30,
    6.4 n 3,
    6.10
    H v Belgium A 127-B (1987), 10 EHRR 339 6.108
    H v France A 162 (1989), 12 EHRR 74 3.26 n 47,
    6.118
    H v United Kingdom A 120 (1987), 10 EHRR 95 (merits); A 136-B (1988), 13 EHRR 449 (just satisfaction) 3.27 n 54,
    3.65,
    4.83,
    4.84,
    6.91 n 141,
    6.159 n 252,
    6.160 n 256
    Håkansson and Sturesson v Sweden A 171 (1990), 13 EHRR 1 2.15 n 43
    Halford v United Kingdom 1997-III p 1004, 24 EHRR 523 3.38 n 77,
    3.50,
    6.169
    Hauschildt v Denmark A 154 (1989), 12 EHRR 266 3.31 n 61,
    6.96
    Hentrich v France A 296-A (1994), 18 EHRR 440 (merits); A 322 (1995), 21 EHRR 199 3.75 n 143,
    6.225 n 379
    Herczegfalvy v Austria A 244 (1992), 15 EHRR 437 6.158 n 250
    Hertel v Switzerland 1998-VI p 2298, 28 EHRR 534 6.200 n 323
    Hilton v United Kingdom (1988) 57 DR 108 2.15 n 39
    Hokkanen v Finland A 299-A (1994), 19 EHRR 139 6.165
    Hussain v United Kingdom 1996-I p 252, 22 EHRR 1 6.75
    Ilhan v Turkey Application no 22277/93, 27 June 2000 3.23 n 37,
    3.25 n 44,
    4.61 n 109,
    6.23
    Incal v Turkey 1998-IV p 1547 6.200 n 323,
    6.203
    Informationsverein Lentia v Austria A 276 (1993), 17 EHRR 93 3.61 n 117,
    6.201
    Inze v Austria A 126 (1987), 10 EHRR 394 6.214 n 355
    Ireland v United Kingdom A 25 (1978), 2 EHRR 25 3.31 n 59
    Jamil v France A 320 (1995), 21 EHRR 65 6.150
    Jersild v Denmark A 298 (1994), 19 EHRR 1 6.202
    John Murray v United Kingdom 1996-I p 30, 22 EHRR 29 6.137 n 217
    Johnson v United Kingdom 1997-VII p 2391, 27 EHRR 296 3.54 n 108,
    6.42
    Jordan v United Kingdom Application no 30280, 14 March 2000 3.41 n 85,
    6.50
    Kampanis v Greece A 325 (1995), 21 EHRR 43 6.66 n 111,
    6.74
    Kaya v Turkey 1998-I p 297, 28 EHRR 1 2.15 n 42,
    3.46 n 93,
    5.6 n 30,
    6.4 n 3,
    6.8,
    6.9,
    6.14 n 19
    Keegan v Ireland A 290 (1994), 18 EHRR 342 6.166
    K-F v Germany 1997-VII p 2657, 26 EHRR 390 6.35
    Khan v United Kingdom Application no 35394/97, 12 May 2000 6.167 n 272
    Kiliç v Turkey Application no 22492/93, 28 March 2000 2.15,
    6.4 n 3,
    6.13 - 6.14
    Klass v Germany A 28 (1978), 2 EHRR 214 2.15 n 39,
    2.15 n 43
    Koendjbiharie v Netherlands A 185-B (1990), 13 EHRR 820 3.44 n 89
    Kokkinakis v Greece A 260-A (1993), 17 EHRR 397 6.191
    König v Germany A 36 (1980), 2 EHRR 469 (just satisfaction) 3.17 n 26,
    3.20, 6.116
    Kopp v Switzerland 1998-II p 524, 27 EHRR 91 6.168 n 274
    Kruslin v France A 176-B (1990), 12 EHRR 547 5.4 n 5,
    6.168
    Kuopila v Finland Application no 27752/95, 27 April 2000 6.106
    Kurt v Turkey 1998-III p 1152, 27 EHRR 373 5.6 n 30,
    6.21
    Labita v Italy Application no 26772/95, 6 April 2000 6.57,
    6.240
    Lala v Netherlands A 297-A (1994), 18 EHRR 586 6.137 n 217
    Lamy v Belgium A 151 (1989), 11 EHRR 529 6.66 n 111
    Langborger v Sweden A 155 (1989), 12 EHRR 416 6.96 n 150
    Larissis v Greece 1998-I p 362, 27 EHRR 329 6.191
    Le Compte, van Leuven and de Meyere v Belgium A 54 (1982), 5 EHRR 183 3.29 n 57,
    6.100 n 161
    Lechner and Hess v Austria A 118 (1987), 9 EHRR 490 6.233 n 396
    Letellier v France A 207 (1991), 14 EHRR 83 6.53,
    6.55 n 88
    Lingens v Austria A 103 (1986), 8 EHRR 407 3.63 n 121,
    6.195,
    6.196
    Litwa v Poland Application no 26629/95, 4 April 2000 6.36 n 55
    Lobo Machado v Portugal 1996-I p 195, 23 EHRR 79 6.100 n 161
    Loizidou v Turkey 1996-VI p 2216, 23 EHRR 513 (merits); 1998-IV p 1807, 26 EHRR CD5 (just satisfaction) 6.235 n 403
    Lopez Ostra v Spain A 303-C, 20 EHRR 277 3.26 n 51,
    6.183
    Luberti v Italy A 75 (1984), 6 EHRR 440 3.54,
    6.66 n 111,
    6.122 n 188
    Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany A 29 (1978), 2 EHRR 149 6.146
    Lukanov v Bulgaria 1997-II p 529, 24 EHRR 121 6.41,
    6.42 n 68
    Magee v United Kingdom Application no 28135/95, 6 June 2000 6.137 n 219
    Manoussakis v Greece 1996-IV p 1346, 23 EHRR 387 6.192
    Mansur v Turkey A 321 (1995), 20 EHRR 535 6.53 n 84,
    6.56,
    6.127 n 200
    Mantovanelli v France 1997-II p 424, 24 EHRR 370 6.104 n 167
    Marckx v Belgium A 31 (1979), 2 EHRR 330 4.74 n 139,
    6.176,
    6.187,
    6.214 n 355
    Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden A 226 (1992), 14 EHRR 615 6.162
    Martins Moreira v Portugal A 143 (1988), 13 EHRR 517 3.62,
    6.233 n 396
    Massa v Italy A 265-B (1993), 18 EHRR 266 4.84 n 162,
    6.119
    Matos e Silva Lda v Portugal 1996-IV p 1092, 24 EHRR 573 6.233 n 396
    Matthews v United Kingdom Application no 24833/94, 18 February 1999, 28 EHRR 361 6.240 n 412
    Maxwell v United Kingdom A 300-C (1994), 19 EHRR 97 6.136,
    6.137 n 217
    McCallum v United Kingdom A 183 (1990), 13 EHRR 597 6.156 n 248
    McCann v United Kingdom A 324 (1995), 21 EHRR 97 2.15 n 45,
    3.56,
    4.47,
    5.5 n 24,
    5.5 n 28,
    6.4 n 2,
    6.5,
    6.6
    McMichael v United Kingdom A 307-B (1995), 20 EHRR 205 6.164
    Megyeri v Germany A 237-A (1992), 15 EHRR 584 6.72
    Mentes v Turkey 1998-IV p 1686, 26 EHRR CD, CD1 3.46 n 93, 3.47
    Messina v Italy A 257-H (1993) 6.158
    Miailhe v France A 256-C (1993), 16 EHRR 332 (merits); A 277-C (1993) (just satisfaction) 6.170
    Milasi v Italy A 119 (1987), 10 EHRR 333 6.127
    Minelli v Switzerland A 62 (1983), 5 EHRR 554 6.130 n 203
    Mitap and Müftüoglu v Turkey 1996-II p 402, 22 EHRR 209 6.127 n 200
    Moustaquim v Belgium A 193 (1991), 13 EHRR 802 6.174
    Neumeister v Austria (No 1) A 8 (1968), 1 EHRR 91 6.79 n 130,
    6.102 n 164
    Neumeister v Austria (No 2) A 17 (1974), 1 EHRR 136 3.34,
    6.79 n 130
    News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v Austria Application no 31457/96, 11 January 2000 6.200 n 323,
    6.202 n 332
    Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland 1997-I p 101, 25 EHRR 709 6.104 n 167
    Niedbala v Poland Application no 27915/95, 4 July 2000 6.49 n 77
    Niemietz v Germany A 251-B (1992), 16 EHRR 97 6.171
    Nikolova v Bulgaria Application No 31195/96, 25 March 1999 3.14 n 21,
    3.38 n 78,
    3.39 - 3.41,
    6.49 n 77,
    6.54,
    6.55,
    6.58,
    6.67 n 113,
    6.72,
    6.79 n 132
    Norris v Ireland A 142 (1988), 13 EHRR 186 2.15 n 38,
    3.37 n 76,
    4.40 n 67,
    6.176
    O v United Kingdom A 136-A (1988), 13 EHRR 578 6.91 n 141
    Oberschlick v Austria A 204 (1991), 19 EHRR 389 3.31 n 61,
    6.99 n 159,
    6.202 n 332
    Olsson v Sweden (No 2) A 250 (1992), 17 EHRR 134 3.26 n 49,
    6.91 n 141
    Olsson v Sweden A 130 (1988), 11 EHRR 259 6.162
    Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland A 246 (1992), 15 EHRR 244 2.15 n 38,
    6.197
    Pakelli v Germany A 64 (1983), 6 EHRR 1 3.31 n 61,
    6.137 n 217
    Papamichalopoulos v Greece A 260-B (1993), 16 EHRR 440 (merits); A 330-B (1995), 21 EHRR 439 (article 50) 3.23 n 38,
    3.32,
    4.77 n 147,
    5.6 n 30,
    6.225 - 6.226
    Pauwels v Belgium A 135 (1988), 11 EHRR 238 3.31 n 62,
    6.46
    Pélissier and Sassi v France Application no 25444/94, 25 March 1999 6.134
    Pelladoah v Netherlands A 297-B (1994), 19 EHRR 81 3.31 n 61,
    6.137 n 217
    Perks v United Kingdom Application nos 25277/94 et al, 12 October 1999, 30 EHRR 33 3.10 n 15,
    3.66 - 3.67,
    4.68 n 125,
    4.86 n 165,
    6.140.
    A.9,
    A.16 - A.22,
    A.27
    Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria A 227 (1992), 14 EHRR 692 6.156 n 248
    Philis v Greece A 209 (1991), 13 EHRR 741 6.93 n 147
    Piermont v France A 314 (1995), 20 EHRR 301 6.202 n 332
    Piersack v Belgium A 53 (1982), 5 EHRR 169 (merits), A 85 (1984), 7 EHRR 251 (just satisfaction) 3.33 n 67,
    6.95
    Pine Valley Developments Ltd v Ireland A 222 (1991), 14 EHRR 319 (merits); A 246-B (1993), 16 EHRR 379 (just satisfaction) 3.71,
    4.61,
    4.89 n 172,
    6.219 - 6.221,
    6.224 n 375
    Plattform 'Ärzte für das Leben' v Austria A 139 (1988), 13 EHRR 204 2.15 n 35
    Poitrimol v France A 277-A (1993), 18 EHRR 130 6.136 n 215
    Pressos Compania Naviera SA v Belgium A 332 (1995), 21 EHRR 301 (merits); 1997-IV p 1292, 24 EHRR CD 16 (just satisfaction) 3.68,
    4.86 n 165,
    6.229 - 6.230
    Pudas v Sweden A 125-A (1987), 10 EHRR 380 6.92,
    6.93
    Punzelt v Czech Republic Application no 31315/96, 25 April 2000 3.41 n 85,
    6.64
    Quinn v France A 311 (1995), 21 EHRR 529 6.40
    R (B) v United Kingdom A 136-D (1988), 13 EHRR 588 (just satisfaction) 6.91 n 141
    R v United Kingdom A 136-E (1988), 13 EHRR 457 (just satisfaction) 6.91 n 141
    Radio ABC v Austria 1997-VI p 2188, 25 EHRR 185 6.201
    Raimondo v Italy A 281-A (1994), 18 EHRR 237 6.224 n 376
    Raninen v Finland 1997-VIII p 2804, 26 EHRR 563 6.36 n 57
    Ribitsch v Austria A 336 (1995), 21 EHRR 573 6.24
    Ringeisen v Austria (No 2) A 15 (1972), 1 EHRR 504 3.19 n 30,
    3.35,
    6.61 n 104
    RMD v Switzerland 1997-VI p 2003, 28 EHRR 224 6.77
    Rotaru v Romania Application no 28341/95, 4 May 2000 6.189
    Ruiz Torija v Spain A 303-A (1994), 19 EHRR 553 6.109
    Ruiz-Mateos v Spain A 262 (1993), 16 EHRR 505 3.61,
    6.104 n 167
    S v Switzerland A 220 (1991), 14 EHRR 670 6.138 n 220
    Saidi v France A 261-C (1993), 17 EHRR 251 3.31 n 61,
    6.104 n 167,
    6.144
    Sakik v Turkey 1997-VII p 2609, 26 EHRR 662 3.26 n 52,
    6.51,
    6.80 n 134
    Salesi v Italy A 257-E (1993), 26 EHRR 187 6.233 n 396
    Salman v Turkey Application no 21986/93, 27 June 2000 3.25 n 44,
    4.61 n 109,
    6.4 n 3,
    6.11,
    6.23 n 34
    Saunders v United Kingdom 1996-VI p 2044, 23 EHRR 313 3.57 n 110,
    6.112
    Schmidt v Germany A 291-B (1994), 18 EHRR 513 6.215,
    6.216 n 360
    Schönenberger and Durmaz v Switzerland A 137 (1988), 11 EHRR 202 3.44 n 89,
    6.156 n 248,
    6.158 n 251
    Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland A 263 (1993), 16 EHRR 405 (merits); A 305-A (1995), 21 EHRR 404 (just satisfaction) 3.73,
    6.214 n 355
    Scollo v Italy A 315-C (1995), 22 EHRR 514 6.114,
    6.233
    Scopelliti v Italy A 278 (1993), 17 EHRR 493 6.120
    Scott v Spain 1996-VI p 2382, 24 EHRR 391 6.60 n 100
    SP, DP and T v United Kingdom Application no 23715/94 (1996), 22 EHRR CD 148 2.15 n 44
    Sekanina v Austria A 266-A (1993), 17 EHRR 221 6.130
    Selçuk and Asker v Turkey 1998-II p 891, 26 EHRR 477 3.46 n 94,
    3.47,
    6.22,
    6.235 n 402
    Sevtap Veznedaroglu v Turkey Application no 32357/96, 11 April 2000 6.25
    Sidiropoulos v Greece 1998-IV p 1594, 27 EHRR 633 6.209 n 345
    Sigurjonsson v Iceland A 264 (1993), 16 EHRR 462 6.206 n 336
    Silva Pontes v Portugal A 286-A (1994), 18 EHRR 156 6.233 n 396
    Silver v United Kingdom A 61 (1983), 5 EHRR 347 (merits), A 67 (1983), 6 EHRR 62 (just satisfaction) 3.44,
    3.56 n 109,
    4.52 n 90,
    6.156, 6.157
    Smith and Grady v United Kingdom Application nos 33985/96 and 33986/96, 25 July 2000 1.5 n 4,
    3.14 n 22,
    3.21,
    3.23 n 35,
    3.23 n 36,
    3.25 n 45,
    3.51,
    3.74,
    4.41 n 68,
    4.57,
    4.61 n 108,
    6.179 - 6.181
    Socialist Party v Turkey 1998-III p 1233, 27 EHRR 51 5.6 n 30,
    6.210
    Soering v United Kingdom A 161 (1989), 11 EHRR 439 2.15 n 40,
    6.17
    Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden A 52 (1982), 5 EHRR 35, (1984) (merits); A 88 (1984), 7 EHRR 256 (just satisfaction) 3.11 n 17,
    3.24,
    4.22 n 39,
    4.61,
    4.68 n 127,
    4.79 n 150,
    6.114,
    6.231 - 6.232
    Sramek v Austria A 84 (1984), 7 EHRR 351 6.96 n 150
    Stallinger and Kuso v Austria 1997-II p 666, 26 EHRR 81 6.100 n 161
    Steel v United Kingdom 1998-VII p 2719, 28 EHRR 603 6.36,
    6.203 n 333
    Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece A 301-B (1994), 19 EHRR 293 3.70,
    3.72,
    5.6 n 30,
    6.228
    Thlimmenos v Greece Application no 34369/97 6.214 n 355
    Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland A 239 (1992), 14 EHRR 843 6.200 n 323
    Timurtas v Turkey Application no 23531/94, 13 June 2000 6.4 n 3
    Tomasi v France A 241-A (1992), 15 EHRR 1 3.22 n 34,
    6.61
    Toth v Austria A 224 (1991), 14 EHRR 551 6.60
    Tre Traktörer AB v Sweden A 159 (1989), 13 EHRR 309 2.15 n 35
    Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v Greece 1997-III p 909, 25 EHRR 198 3.22 n 34,
    6.30,
    6.79 n 131,
    6.80 n 133,
    6.80 n 134,
    A.2 n 4
    TW v Malta Application nos 25644/94 and 25642/94, 29 April 1999, 29 EHRR 185 3.38 n 78,
    3.41 n 85,
    6.49
    Unión Alimentaria Sanders SA v Spain A 157 (1989), 12 EHRR 24 6.233 n 396
    United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey 1998-I p 1, 26 EHRR 121 6.208 - 6.209
    Unterpertinger v Austria A 110 (1986), 13 EHRR 175 6.144 n 231
    Valenzuela Contreras v Spain 1998-V p 1909, 28 EHRR 483 6.168 n 274
    Valikova v Bulgaria Application no 41488/98, 18 May 2000 6.4 n 3,
    6.12
    Vallee v France A 289 (1994), 18 EHRR 549 6.119 n 184
    Valsamis v Greece 1996-VI p 2312, 24 EHRR 294 6.192
    Van der Leer v Netherlands A 170 (1990), 12 EHRR 567 3.26 n 48,
    6.43
    Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe v Netherlands A 78 (1984), 13 EHRR 461 6.47 n 75
    Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium A 63 (1983), 13 EHRR 546 (just satisfaction) 6.67 n 113
    Van Mechelen v Netherlands 1997-III p 691, 25 EHRR 647 (merits); 1997-VII p 2426 (just satisfaction) 6.144 n 231
    Van Orshoven v Belgium 1997-III p 1039, 26 EHRR 55 6.104 n 167
    Van Raalte v Netherlands 1997-I p 173, 24 EHRR 503 6.216
    Vasilescu v Romania 1998-III p 1064, 28 EHRR 241 6.227
    Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v Austria A 302 (1994), 20 EHRR 55 6.200
    Vidal v Belgium A 235-B (1992) (merits); A 235-E (1992) (just satisfaction) 6.144
    W v United Kingdom (1983) 32 DR 190 2.15 n 42
    W v United Kingdom A 121 (1987), 10 EHRR 29 (merits); A 136-C (1988), 13 EHRR 453 (just satisfaction) 3.27 n 54,
    5.5 n 14,
    6.90 - 6.91,
    6.159 n 253,
    6.161
    Weber v Switzerland A 177 (1990), 12 EHRR 508 6.100 n 161,
    6.202 n 332
    Weeks v United Kingdom A 114 (1987), 10 EHRR 293 (merits), A 143-A (1988), 13 EHRR 435 (just satisfaction) 3.64,
    6.68 -6.71,
    6.75 n 126
    Welch v United Kingdom A 307-A (1995), 20 EHRR 247 (merits); 1996-II p 386, 21 EHRR CD1 (just satisfaction) 3.57 n 110,
    6.149
    Werner v Austria, Szücs v Austria 1997-VII p 2468, 26 EHRR 310 6.100 n 161
    Windisch v Austria A 186 (1990), 13 EHRR 281 (merits); A 255-D (1993) (just satisaction) 3.33 n 67,
    6.142 n 227
    X and Church of Scientology v Sweden (1979) 16 DR 68 2.15 n 35
    X v France A 234-C (1991), 14 EHRR 483 2.15 n 45
    X v Germany Yearbook 1 (1955-1957) 2.15 n 44
    X v Norway Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol 4, p 270 2.15 n 37
    X v United Kingdom A 55 (1982), 5 EHRR 192 3.31 n 62
    Yagci and Sargin v Turkey A 319 (1995), 20 EHRR 505 6.56 n 93
    Yasa v Turkey 1998-VI p 2411, 28 EHRR 408 5.6 n 30,
    6.4 n 3, 6.9
    Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom A 44 (1981) 4 EHRR 38 (merits); A 55 (1982), 5 EHRR 201 (just satisfaction) 3.23 n 35,
    3.23 n 36,
    3.26 n 50,
    3.29 n 57,
    6.206
    Z v Finland 1997-I p 323, 25 EHRR 371 6.186
    Zana v Turkey 1997-VII p 2533, 27 EHRR 667 6.136 n 215,
    6.138 n 220
    TABLE OF OTHER CASES
    AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507 4.71 n 133,
    4.72 n 136
    Allan v Barclay (1864) 2M 873 5.5 n 20
    Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Edgestop Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 1462 4.24 n 43,
    4.49 n 81,
    4.49 n 84
    Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907, C.A 4.85 n 164
    Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978) 83 DLR (3rd) 452 4.66
    Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 A.5,
    A.14 n 39,
    A.14 n 42
    Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 A.3
    Attorney-General v Blake [1998] Ch 439 4.75 n 141,
    4.75 n 143,
    4.76
    Baigent v British Broadcasting Corporation 1999 GWD 10-474 5.5 n 16
    Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 4.78 n 149
    Black v North British Railway Co 1908 SC 444 5.5 n 9,
    Bradley v Menley & James Ltd 1913 SC 923 4.74 n 138
    Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany, R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd [1996] ECR I-1029 4.54
    Carey v Piphus (1978) 435 US 247 4.14 n 20
    Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786 4.85 n 164
    Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978 4.47 n 80
    Downie v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police 1997 SCLR 603 5.5 n 10
    Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158 4.24 n 42
    Duncan v Ross Harper & Murphy 1993 SLT 105 5.5 n 27
    Forsikringsaktielskapet Vesta v Butcher (No. 1) [1989] 2 AC 852 4.49 n 84
    Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 3.38 n 77,
    4.29 n 51,
    4.72 n 137
    Frankovitch v Italy [1991] ECR 1\5357 4.30 n 52
    Gilbert v Yorston 1997 SLT 879 5.5 n 15
    Halifax Building Society v Thomas [1996] Ch 217 4.76 n 145
    Heil v Rankin [2000] 2 WLR 1173 3.6 n 6,
    4.7 - 4.9,
    4.27,
    4.29 n 51,
    4.41, 4.59, 4.66,
    4.67, 4.94
    Henderson v Chief Constable, Fife Police 1988 SLT 361 5.5 n 11
    Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 4.85 n 163
    Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 4.80 n 151
    John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 3.6 n 5
    Kenyon v Bell 1953 SC 125 5.5 n 22
    Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No 5), The Times 7 April 2000 4.80 n 152
    Kyle v P & J Stormonth Darling WS 1993 SC 57 5.5 n 22
    Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25 4.8 n 11, 4.14
    Lord v Allison (1986) 3 BCLR (2d) 300 4.72 n 137
    Lunt v Liverpool City Justices (CA unreported) 5 March 1991 3.10 n 15
    Maharaj v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979] AC 385 4.16 - 4.17, 4.19,
    A.28, A.29
    McCreadie v Thomson 1907 SC 1176 A.4 n 10
    McKeen v Chief Constable, Lothian and Borders Police 1994 SLT 93 5.5 n 14
    Mediana, The [1900] AC 113 4.74 n 138
    Ministry of Defence v Ashman (1993) 66 P & CR 195 4.75 n 142
    O'Connor v Isaacs [1956] 2 QB 288 A.5 n 22,
    A.30 n 69
    O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 A.5 n 20
    Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co, The Wagon Mound [1961] AC 388, PC 4.24 n 41,
    4.80 n 151
    Penarth Dock Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyd's Rep 359 4.75 n 142
    Quinn v Burch Bros (Builders) Ltd[1966] 2 QB 370 4.49 n 83
    R v East Berks HA ex p Walsh [1985] QB 152 2.12 n 26
    R v Governor of H M Brockhill Prison ex p Evans No.2 [1999] 2 WLR 103 (CA) 4.68 n 126
    R v Governor of H M Prison Brockhill ex p Evans, HL, unreported, 27 July 2000 A.2 n 4,
    A.13 n 39
    R v Home Secretary ex p Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890 A.14 n 40
    R v Hull University Visitor ex p Page [1993] AC 682 A.14 n 42
    R v Manchester City Magistrates' Court ex p Davies [1989] QB 631 A.5, A.7, A.10,
    A.11, A.12, A.18,
    A.30, A.31,
    R v McGillivary (1990) 56 CCC (3d) 304 4.25
    R v Oldham Justices ex p Cawley [1996] 1 All ER 464 A.13 n 40
    R v Poole Justices ex p Benham [1991] 4 Admin LR 161 A.10
    R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 3) [1992] QB 680. 4.56
    R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd and others (No 5) [2000] AC 524 4.30 n 52,
    4.56 n 97
    R v Waltham Forest Justices ex p Solanke [1986] QB 983 A.4 n 12,
    A.26 n 58
    Re McC(A Minor) [1985] 1 AC 528 A.4 n 10,
    A.5, A.6,
    A.8, A.18, A.23,
    A.25, A.30
    Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360 4.53 n 92,
    5.5 n 23, 5.5 n 25
    Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 4.69, 4.71 n 133,
    4.72
    Russell v Dickson 1998 SLT 96 A.4 n 10
    Russell v Wilson 1994 SLT 660 A.4 n 10
    Schachter v Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679 4.14 n 20
    Simpson v Attorney General, Baigent's case [1994] 3 NZLR 667 4.19, 4.31 n 57,
    4.72 n 137,
    4.88 n 170
    Smith New Court Securities v Citibank NA [1997] AC 254 (HL) 4.24 n 42
    Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 4.80 n 151
    Smith v Wade (1983) 461 US 30 4.72 n 137
    Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 218 (CA) 4.47 n 80
    Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 3.6 n 5,
    3.10 n 15,
    4.9 n 15, 4.68
    Wallace v Manchester City Council (1998) 30 HLR 1111 CA 4.68 n 127
    Weir v Wyper 1992 SLT 579 5.5 n 27
    Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345 4.8 n 13,
    4.9 n 14,
    4.90 n 176
    Wright v British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773 4.90 n 177
    X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 4.40 n 66


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2000/266.html