header-logo header-logo

09 December 2010
Issue: 7445 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Parliament

R v Chaytor and others [2010] UKSC 52, [2010] All ER (D) 19 (Dec)

(i) The submitting of claims by MPs for allowances and expenses did not form part of, nor was it incidental to, the core or essential business of Parliament, which consisted of collective deliberation and decision making. The submission of claims was an activity which was an incident of the administration of Parliament; it was not part of the proceedings in Parliament.

(ii) The House of Commons did not assert an exclusive jurisdiction to deal with criminal conduct, even where that related to or interfered with proceedings in committee or in the House. Where it was considered appropriate the police would be invited to intervene with a view to prosecution in the courts. Furthermore, criminal proceedings were unlikely to be possible without the cooperation of Parliament. Before a prosecution could take place it was necessary to investigate the facts and obtain evidence. Parliament by legislation and by administrative changes had to a large extent relinquished any claim to have exclusive cognisance of the administrative business of the two

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll