10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

On 6 August 1984 the Court of Apical ( Lord Lane C.J. Watkins and May L.JJ. )Allowed an appeal by the minister for the Civil Service giving the applicantsleave to appeal to the House of Lords. They dismissed a cross-appeal by theapplicants relating to costs The applicants appealed.The facts are set out in the opinions of Loud Fraser of Tullybelton and LordRoskillLouis blom-Cooper Q.C Patrick Elias and Richard Drabble for the applicants Astaff association and a trade union are not necessarily the same thing a staffassociation might not be affiliated to a national trade union. It is part of a nationaltrade union but may only recruit amongst the staff themselves.Glidewell J. finding that General notice 100/84 was a notice giving informationnot a set of regulations or instructions is adapted it is a correct analysis of thesituation regarding the direction and the general notice. The Court of Appealmade no analysisThree points are made regarding the situation up to 25 January 1984 (1) As tothe decision or direction made orally on 22 December 1983 to ban national tradeunions and substitute departmental associations there was no other or furtherindication in that direction or in the confirming letter of 7 February 1984 written bySir Robert Armstrong o the dire3ctore of GCHQ. That is all the knowledge thatanyone had (2) on 25 January a month later the Secretary of State issued thetwo certificates Because of the date one assumes that was consequential on thedirection of 22 December not the other way round (3) The general notice of 25January 1984 was not an instruction the instruction is and can only be thedecision or direction of 22 December it is that and that aloneAssuming that there was a duty to act fairly the refusal to enter on consultationhas bearing on that duty. There is a body of opinion that thought that the failureto consult was a breach of it Tullybelton has pointed out. Loud Reid and viscountRadcliffe treated his evidence as relevant to the dismissal of the appeal. LordDevlin develop the point taken in the case on national security in a passagebeginning at p. 809 which with all respect to those who take a different view Ibelieve to be sound law. Having referred to the undoubted principle that all338

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!