Wilson v First Country Overview of the Human [179] “The 1998 Act is
Trust (No 2) [2003] UK Rights Act 1998 beautifully drafted. Its
HL 40 [2003] 3 W.L.R. structure is tight and elegant”.
568 [179] Lord Rodger
of Earlsferry Facts: The Secretary of State
appealed against a decision
that the restriction on the
enforcement of improperly
executed credit agreements
given in the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 s.127(3) was
incompatible with the ECHR
A6(1) and Protocol 1 art.1. In
1999 W borrowed £5,000 from
a pawnbroker by pawning her
car. W was charged a
"document fee" of £250 which
was added to the amount of
the loan. The Court of Appeal
held that the document fee
was not credit within the
meaning given in the 1974 Act.
Consequently, one of the
prescribed terms had been
incorrectly stated and,
pursuant to s.127(3), the
agreement was unenforceable.
As a result, W was entitled to
keep the loan amount, pay no
interest and recover her car.
CoA made a DOI. Secretary of
State argued that the CoA had
no jurisdiction to make a
declaration of incompatibility
in relation to events which
occurred before the 1998 Act
came into force. Held, allowing
the appeal, that (1) the Court
of Appeal had been wrong to
make a declaration of
incompatibility.
Regina (Quark Fishing Purpose of the HRA 1998 [33] “the Act was
Ltd) v Secretary of State intended to ‘bring rights
for Foreign & home.’ The Act was to
Commonwealth Affairs provide a means
[2005] UK HL 57 [2005] whereby persons whose
3 W.L.R. 837 [33] Lord rights under the
Bingham of Cornhill Convention were
infringed by the [UK]
could … have an
appropriate remedy
available to them”.
, An unlawful instruction
given by the secretary of
state to the local
government in South
Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands to
refuse a fishing licence
wasn’t capable of giving
rise to a claim for
damages under the HRA
1998 s.7 because the
relevant provisions of
the Human Rights Act
1998 Sch.1 Part II Art.1
had not been extended
to that territory. Q had
successfully challenged
the lawfulness of the
secretary of state's
instruction on public law
grounds but Q's
consequential claim for
damages was struck out
on the ground that,
although the instruction
had been issued by the
secretary of state acting
for Her Majesty the
Queen in right of the UK,
damages could not be
obtained under the 1998
Act because the relevant
provisions of the Human
Rights Act 1998 Sch.1
Part I Art. 1 had not been
extended to SGSSI
(South Georgia & South
Sandwich Islands).
McCartan Turkington Purpose of the HRA 1998 [C-D] “[HRA 1998] fulfils
Breen v Times the function of a Bill of
Newspapers [2001] 2 Rights in our legal
A.C. 277 [2000] 3 WLR system … There is a
1670, C-D Lord Steyn general agreement that
the HRA is a
constitutional measure.”
Arorangi Timberland Ltd Purpose of the HRA 1998 [90] Lord Mance &
v Minister of Cook Neuberger: “One of the
Islands National principal reasons for
Superannuation Fund having constitutional
[2016] UK PC 32 [2017] rights is that the
1 W.L.R. 99 ordinary majoritarian
political process [can’t
be] relied on to protect
,minorities”.
The appellants, being
employers and
employees in businesses
carried on in the Cook
Islands, appealed
against a decision that
the superannuation
scheme set up by the
Cook Islands National
Superannuation Act
2000 was not
unconstitutional.
Membership of the
scheme and an
obligation to contribute
to the superannuation
fund were compulsory
for every person who
was in employment in
the Cook Islands. Under
the scheme, the
employer and employee
were both required to
pay a percentage of the
employee's earnings into
the fund. A trust deed
was entered into. It
established the fund,
appointed the initial
trustee and set out how
the fund was to operate.
By virtue of s.53 of the
National Superannuation
Act 2000, non-resident
employees (migrant
workers) who were
employed for up to three
years had to contribute
to the scheme in the
same way as employees
who were permanently
resident in the Cook
Islands. unlike resident
workers, migrant
workers were entitled to
be repaid their
contributions at the end
of their employment, but
that right only extended
to their own
contributions, and not to
the contributions made
, for their benefit by their
employers. If a migrant
worker made such an
election, the employer's
contributions would be
transferred to the fund's
reserve account, where
they inured to the
benefit of other
members of the
superannuation fund.
Held: s.53 of the 2000
Act was unjustifiably
discriminatory towards
migrant workers contrary
to art.64(1) of the
Constitution of the Cook
Islands 1964.
R v Director of Public Intersection between [367] “It is crystal clear
Prosecutions ex parte HRA 1998 and that the carefully and
Kebilene [2000] 2 AC Parliamentary subtly drafted HRA 1998
326 [1999] 3 W.L.R. 972, Sovereignty preserves the principle
[367] Lord Steyn of Parliamentary
Sovereignty”.
DPP appealed against
the decision to grant
declaratory relief to K on
the ground that the
decision to continue
prosecutions under
the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act 1989
s.16A involved an error
of law, as s.16A, relating
to the possession of
articles for terrorist
purposes, reversed the
legal burden of proof and
therefore undermined
the presumption of
innocence and was
incompatible with
the European
Convention on Human
Rights 1950 Art.6(2) and
the Human Rights Act
1998. Held, allowing the
appeal, that the DPP was
entitled to decide that
the prosecution was
justified as being in the
public interest, despite
Trust (No 2) [2003] UK Rights Act 1998 beautifully drafted. Its
HL 40 [2003] 3 W.L.R. structure is tight and elegant”.
568 [179] Lord Rodger
of Earlsferry Facts: The Secretary of State
appealed against a decision
that the restriction on the
enforcement of improperly
executed credit agreements
given in the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 s.127(3) was
incompatible with the ECHR
A6(1) and Protocol 1 art.1. In
1999 W borrowed £5,000 from
a pawnbroker by pawning her
car. W was charged a
"document fee" of £250 which
was added to the amount of
the loan. The Court of Appeal
held that the document fee
was not credit within the
meaning given in the 1974 Act.
Consequently, one of the
prescribed terms had been
incorrectly stated and,
pursuant to s.127(3), the
agreement was unenforceable.
As a result, W was entitled to
keep the loan amount, pay no
interest and recover her car.
CoA made a DOI. Secretary of
State argued that the CoA had
no jurisdiction to make a
declaration of incompatibility
in relation to events which
occurred before the 1998 Act
came into force. Held, allowing
the appeal, that (1) the Court
of Appeal had been wrong to
make a declaration of
incompatibility.
Regina (Quark Fishing Purpose of the HRA 1998 [33] “the Act was
Ltd) v Secretary of State intended to ‘bring rights
for Foreign & home.’ The Act was to
Commonwealth Affairs provide a means
[2005] UK HL 57 [2005] whereby persons whose
3 W.L.R. 837 [33] Lord rights under the
Bingham of Cornhill Convention were
infringed by the [UK]
could … have an
appropriate remedy
available to them”.
, An unlawful instruction
given by the secretary of
state to the local
government in South
Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands to
refuse a fishing licence
wasn’t capable of giving
rise to a claim for
damages under the HRA
1998 s.7 because the
relevant provisions of
the Human Rights Act
1998 Sch.1 Part II Art.1
had not been extended
to that territory. Q had
successfully challenged
the lawfulness of the
secretary of state's
instruction on public law
grounds but Q's
consequential claim for
damages was struck out
on the ground that,
although the instruction
had been issued by the
secretary of state acting
for Her Majesty the
Queen in right of the UK,
damages could not be
obtained under the 1998
Act because the relevant
provisions of the Human
Rights Act 1998 Sch.1
Part I Art. 1 had not been
extended to SGSSI
(South Georgia & South
Sandwich Islands).
McCartan Turkington Purpose of the HRA 1998 [C-D] “[HRA 1998] fulfils
Breen v Times the function of a Bill of
Newspapers [2001] 2 Rights in our legal
A.C. 277 [2000] 3 WLR system … There is a
1670, C-D Lord Steyn general agreement that
the HRA is a
constitutional measure.”
Arorangi Timberland Ltd Purpose of the HRA 1998 [90] Lord Mance &
v Minister of Cook Neuberger: “One of the
Islands National principal reasons for
Superannuation Fund having constitutional
[2016] UK PC 32 [2017] rights is that the
1 W.L.R. 99 ordinary majoritarian
political process [can’t
be] relied on to protect
,minorities”.
The appellants, being
employers and
employees in businesses
carried on in the Cook
Islands, appealed
against a decision that
the superannuation
scheme set up by the
Cook Islands National
Superannuation Act
2000 was not
unconstitutional.
Membership of the
scheme and an
obligation to contribute
to the superannuation
fund were compulsory
for every person who
was in employment in
the Cook Islands. Under
the scheme, the
employer and employee
were both required to
pay a percentage of the
employee's earnings into
the fund. A trust deed
was entered into. It
established the fund,
appointed the initial
trustee and set out how
the fund was to operate.
By virtue of s.53 of the
National Superannuation
Act 2000, non-resident
employees (migrant
workers) who were
employed for up to three
years had to contribute
to the scheme in the
same way as employees
who were permanently
resident in the Cook
Islands. unlike resident
workers, migrant
workers were entitled to
be repaid their
contributions at the end
of their employment, but
that right only extended
to their own
contributions, and not to
the contributions made
, for their benefit by their
employers. If a migrant
worker made such an
election, the employer's
contributions would be
transferred to the fund's
reserve account, where
they inured to the
benefit of other
members of the
superannuation fund.
Held: s.53 of the 2000
Act was unjustifiably
discriminatory towards
migrant workers contrary
to art.64(1) of the
Constitution of the Cook
Islands 1964.
R v Director of Public Intersection between [367] “It is crystal clear
Prosecutions ex parte HRA 1998 and that the carefully and
Kebilene [2000] 2 AC Parliamentary subtly drafted HRA 1998
326 [1999] 3 W.L.R. 972, Sovereignty preserves the principle
[367] Lord Steyn of Parliamentary
Sovereignty”.
DPP appealed against
the decision to grant
declaratory relief to K on
the ground that the
decision to continue
prosecutions under
the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act 1989
s.16A involved an error
of law, as s.16A, relating
to the possession of
articles for terrorist
purposes, reversed the
legal burden of proof and
therefore undermined
the presumption of
innocence and was
incompatible with
the European
Convention on Human
Rights 1950 Art.6(2) and
the Human Rights Act
1998. Held, allowing the
appeal, that the DPP was
entitled to decide that
the prosecution was
justified as being in the
public interest, despite
