By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

was made without jurisdiction, then Mr Richards would rely on this in order wasmade without then Mr Richards would rely on this in support of his contentionthat Mr Baker should not have bveen found guilty of contempt. As Mr Richardsadmitted, the issue is of constitutional importance since it goies to the heart ofthe relationship between the executive and the courts is the relationship based,as he submits, on trust and cooperation of ultimately on coercion?Mr Richards submits that the answer to this questions is provided by thediecision of Factoriane Ltd v Secretary of Staae for Transport (1989) 2 ALL ER692, (1990_) 2 AC 85 and in particular by the reasoning of Lord Bridge of Hawichwho made the only speech in that case. This speech was highly influential incansing Simon Bwn) I and Mc Cowan LJ to take a different view from the majorityof the Court of Appeal as to the ourcome of the present proceedings. That casewas not, however, grimarly concerned with the question as to whether injunctiverelief was available against the Crown or its officers. It involved the allegedlydiscriminatory effect of the requirement of British ownership and the otherrequirements ofr Pc II of the Merchant Shipping Act 19988 and the associatedregulations, which prevented fishing vessels which were owned by Spanishnarionals or managed in Spain being registered under the legislation. This it wassaid contravened Community law. It was an issue of difficulty which hadaccordingly been refrred to the Eujropean Court under art 177 of EEC Treaty.The question then arson as to whether the applicants were enttled to incermrelief pending the outcome of the reference. The primary contention of the559