header-logo header-logo

28 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CIVIL LITIGATION

Ofulue v Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7, [2008] All ER (D) 236 (Jan)

 

If a party asserts that a European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) right is engaged, the court must take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence.

 

This does not inevitably mean that the domestic court must follow the Strasbourg court. Rather, the court has to have very good reasons for departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Special circumstances justifying departure might exist if the domestic court is satisfied that the Strasbourg court had misunderstood the effect of domestic law. If the rule of domestic law creates a discretion rather than an absolute rule of law, the domestic court might come to the conclusion that the discretion should be exercised in a different way from that in which it was in fact exercised in the case before the Strasbourg court.

 

If the Strasbourg court finds that a particular area falls within the margin of appreciation of contracting states, this is a signal to the national judge that the decision of the national authorities as to the content of rights within that area should receive appropriate respect.

In the absence of special circumstances:

 

(i) if domestic law within an area found by the Strasbourg court to be within the contracting states’ margin of appreciation is challenged before an English court, the English court should consider whether or not the domestic rule serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate (according the appropriate degree of respect to the decision maker in domestic law) and should find that the law is Convention-compliant if those tests are satisfied; and

 

(ii) where the Strasbourg court has itself already carried out this exercise, the English court should follow the decision of the Strasbourg court (Lady Justice Arden at paras 31–37).

 

Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll