By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Court has been given . If the applicants fail to establish the rights they claimbefore the European Court, the effect of the interim relief granted would be tohave conferred on them rights directly contrary to Parliament’s sovereign will andcorrespondingly to have deprived British fishing vessels, as defined byParliament,, of the injoyment of a substqnfial proportion of the United Kingdomquota of stocks of fish protected by the common fisheris policy. I am clearly of theopinion that, as a matter of English law, the court has no power to make an orderwhich has these consequences.Pending the outcome of the second of the second reference this conclusion wasin itself sufficient to determine the applicants appeal. However, Lord Bridge wenton to give a second reason for his decision which is derectly relevant to thepresent appeal. The second reasons is that injunctive relef is not availableagainst the Crown or an officer of the Crown, when acting as such in judicialreview proceedings. When determining this aspect of the appeal the House hadthe advantage of full argument on behalf of the Crown from junior counsel MrLaws (see (1990) 2 AC 85 at 119 – 126), as to why relief was not available, butjudging by the report the House did not bave the venefit of the very extensiveargument in favour of the contrary view based on the historical development ofproceedins against the Crown on which Mr Keatridge relied at the hearing of thisappeal. In saying this I make no criticism whatsoever of counsel for theapplicants to Factorame. It is clear that what for the Crown was a question of thetgreatest importance was for the applicants sideshow. The Crown was anxious to561