Private act, public function?

Neil Parpworth considers whether electing a new party leader is a public law function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998?

In Tortoise Media Ltd, the Court of Appeal ruled that electing a party leader—even one who becomes prime minister—is a private act, not a public function under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), despite its significant public consequences.
The Conservative Party was not deemed a ‘public authority’ under s 6 of HRA 1998, so it had no legal obligation to disclose internal leadership election data, even when challenged under Art 10 of the ECHR. But judicial review is still possible.

Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) lies at the heart of human rights protection in English law by making it ‘unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right’. This begs the question: what is a ‘public authority’ for the purposes of HRA 1998? The answer, however, is less straightforward than in some other

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

Private act, public function?

Neil Parpworth considers whether electing a new party leader is a public law function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998?

In Tortoise Media Ltd, the Court of Appeal ruled that electing a party leader—even one who becomes prime minister—is a private act, not a public function under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), despite its significant public consequences.
The Conservative Party was not deemed a ‘public authority’ under s 6 of HRA 1998, so it had no legal obligation to disclose internal leadership election data, even when challenged under Art 10 of the ECHR. But judicial review is still possible.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS

Read All

APIL sees off ‘substantial prejudice’ defence

Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped

‘Lost years’ precedent overturned

Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment

NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age

The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’

NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants

Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes

NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge

Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing

Error message

Private act, public function?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes