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...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

obtain an injunction (see also Merricks v Heatheat . Antory (1955) 2 All ER 453 at456, (19955) Ch 567 at 574.)Upjohn I’s approach appears to treat a duty placed upon a named minister asbeing placed upon the government as a whole. This could be said to be in accordwith the approach of Lord Diplack and Lord Simon in Town Investments Ltd vDept of Environment (1977) 1 All Er 813, *1978) AC 359. However, in that caseyour Lordships house was dealing with a very different situation, namely theconsequence of agrant of a lease to a named department of government whichcan make the Crown and not the department the tenant. It is not appropriate toapply that approach to actions in tort, including actions for breach of statutoryduty, since this would mean that the 1947 Act had the surprising effect of treatingthe wrongful act of a named minister as being that of the Crown so that theminister could no longer be sued personally in tort or for injunctive relief, Thuswhile the outcome of the Merrides case was correct, the reasoning of Upjohn Iwas incorrect, if and in so far, by his remarks which have been cited, he wasseeking to suggest that a minister when acting in his official capacity could not besued personally and an injunction granted. In any event his remarks could haveno application to proceedings for the prerogative orders or judicial review whichhe was not considering.I now turn to the historical development of relief against the Crown in prerogativeproceedings. I do so because the historical development of the two sets ofproceedings have been on different lines.581

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!