header-logo header-logo

Parliament

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

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll