The Law Commission

 


The Law Commission

And The Scottish Law Commission

(LAW COM No 266)

(SCOT LAW COM No 180)

DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law

Commissions Act 1965

Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty

Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers

October 2000

Cm 4853

SE/2000/182

The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law.

The Law Commissioners are:

The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman

Professor Hugh Beale

Miss Diana Faber

Mr Charles Harpum

Judge Alan Wilkie, QC

The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ.

The Scottish Law Commissioners are:

The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman

Mr Patrick S Hodge, QC

Professor Gerard Maher

Professor Kenneth G C Reid

Professor Joseph M Thomson

The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr Norman Raven and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR.

The terms of this report were agreed on 21 August 2000.

The text of this report is available on the Internet at:

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk

http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Human Rights Act 1998 provides citizens of the United Kingdom with important protection for certain of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention rights"). Section 7 of the Act gives a new claim against public authorities where the public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with one or more of those rights. The claim may be brought by a victim of the public authority's action, and the remedies sought may include damages in compensation for the violation of the Convention rights. Section 8 of the Human Rights Act provides that before a court may award damages it must be satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made. This is the test applicable to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg under Article 41 of the Convention, and section 8 also provides that courts in this country must take into account the principles applied by the Strasbourg Court in deciding whether to award compensation for a violation of the Convention, and the amount of any award.

This report contains an article by article description of the case-law, and an analysis of the practice, of the Strasbourg Court in relation to the award of compensation. It also considers when damages may be awarded for violations of Article 5 of the Convention by judicial acts.

The primary principle governing the award of compensation by that Court is that the victim should, as far as possible, be placed in the same position as if the violation of his or her rights had not occurred. We discuss how that principle is applied by the Strasbourg Court, and when it requires the award of damages to the victim.

We then consider what the implications are for the award of damages by courts in the United Kingdom in relation to a claim brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. We conclude that in most areas the approach of the Strasbourg Court is not significantly different to the rules currently applied by courts in this country to the award of damages.

There are some points at which the practice of the Strasbourg Court does differ from courts in this country. For example, the Strasbourg Court does not award punitive damages. In contrast, the Strasbourg Court has awarded compensation in relation to some forms of non-pecuniary, or intangible, loss - such as for loss of relationship between parent and child - which have not yet been recognised by courts in this country. Following the practice of the Strasbourg Court may require further development of the law by courts in this country.

Subject to these points the implementation of the Human Rights Act will not require major changes to the law on damages. The Strasbourg Court seeks to compensate applicants under the Convention fully for any loss which they can prove resulted from a violation of the Convention. Where courts in this country have established appropriate levels of compensation for particular types of loss in relation to claims in tort or delict, it would seem appropriate for the same rules to be used in relation to a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.

THE LAW COMMISSION

THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION

DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

CONTENTS

	Para
PART I: INTRODUCTION	1.1-1.12
1. THE TERMS OF REFERENCE	1.1-1.2
2. NATURE OF THE REPORT	1.3-1.5
3. COMPARATIVE WORK	1.6
4. THE STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT	1.7-1.10
5. FOREIGN CURRENCY CONVERSIONS	1.11
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	1.12
SECTION A: GENERAL PRINCIPLES	2.1-5.7
PART II: REMEDIES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998	2.1-2.33
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT	2.1
2. THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998	2.2-2.3
3. OUTUNE OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT	2.4-2.7
4. DAMAGES UNDER SECTION 8	2.8-2.9
(1) The statutory provision	2.8
(2) Principal features	2.9
5. PRELIMINARY MATTERS	2.10-2.25
(1) Public authorities	2.11-2.14
(2) Who may bring proceedings under section 6?	2.15
(3) The court must have power to award damages in civil proceedings	2.16-2.18
(4) "Just and appropriate" remedies	2.19-2.21
(5) Relationship of claims under section 6 to other causes of action	2.22-2.25
6. SECTION 9(3): LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF JUDICIAL ACTS	2.26-2.27
7. SCOTLAND. WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND	2.28-2.33
(1) Scotland	2.29-2.31
(2) Wales	2.32
(3) Northern Ireland	2.33
PART III: JUST SATISFACTION IN STRASBOURG	3.1-3.78
1. INTRODUCTION	3.1-3.3
2. GENERAL POINTS ON STRASBOURG PRACTICE	3.4-3.30
(1) Absence of clear principles	3.4-3.15
(2) The pre-conditions imposed by Article 41	3.16-3.18
(3) General aim of restitutio in integrum	3.19-3.21
(4) The heads of damages recoverable	3.22
(a) Introduction	3.22
(b) Pecuniary loss	3.23-3.25
(c) Non-pecuniary loss	3.26-3.28
(d) Costs and expenses	3.29-3.30
3. EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UNDER ARTICLE 41	3.31-3.57
(1) Other measures in response to a violation	3.31-3.37
(2) Just satisfaction by a finding of violation	3.38-3.43
(3) Degree of loss	3.44
(4) Seriousness of the violation	3.45-3.46
(5) Conduct of the respondent	3.47-3.48
(a) Offensive conduct of the State	3.49-3.51
(b) Record of previous violations by the State	3.52-3.53
(6) Conduct of the applicant	3.54-3.57
4 CAUSATION	3.58-3.69
(1) Need for clear causal link	3.58
(2) Speculative losses	3.59
(a) Strict causation	3.60-3.61
(b) Loss or opportunities	3.62-3.65
(c) Attempts to reconcile the two approaches	3.66-3.69
5 INTEREST	3.70-3.75
(1) Interest as a pecuniary loss	3.70-3.74
(2) Default Interest	3.75
6. CONCLUSION	3.76-3.78
PART IV: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER THE COMMON LAW	4.1-4.97
1. INTRODUCTION	4.1-4.2
2. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE STRASBOURG PRINCIPLES	4.3-4.11
(1) Must the principles be followed?	4.4-4.5
(2) Principles not practice	4.6-4.11
3. COMMON LAW ANALOGIES	4.12-4.26
(1) Comparisons with claims in tort	4.12-4.15
(2) Constitutional rights in the Commonwealth	4.16-4.20
(3) Use of common law analogies	4.21-4.26
4. PRINCIPLES FOR THE DOMESTIC COURTS	4.27-4.32
5. THE STRASBOURG PRINCIPLES AND THE APPLICATION OF SECTION S	4.33-4.58
(1) The court's discretion to make an award	4.33
(2) No damages if other remedy provides just satisfaction	4.36-4.39
(3) The consequences of the decision	4.40-4.42
(4) Exercise of the general discretion	4.43-4.45
(a) Where there is an equivalent rule in English law	4.46-4.49
(b) Cases with no obvious equivalent	4.50-4.53
(c) Analogies to the European Court of Justice	4.54-4.58
6. HEADS OF LOSS	4.59-4.77
(1) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss	4.59-4.60
(2) Pecuniary loss	4.61-4.62
(3) Non-pecuniary loss	4.63-4.68
(4) Anxiety, distress and frustration	4.69-4.70
(5) Exemplary or punitive damages	4.71-4.73
(6) Nominal damages	4.74
(7) Restitutionary damages	4.75-4.77
7. CAUSATION	4.78-4.87
(1) Causal link	4.78-4.81
(2) Apportioning responsibility where judicial acts are involved	4.82-4.84
(3) Speculative losses	4.85-4.87
8. OTHER ISSUES	4.88-4.91
(1) Concurrent liability	4.88
(2) Interest	4.89-4.91
9. CONCLUSION	4.92-4.97
PART V: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER SCOTS LAW	5.1-5.7
1. INTRODUCTION	5.1-5.2
2. THE DISCRETION TO AWARD DAMAGES	5.3-5.4
3. HOW QUANTUM SHOULD BE ASSESSED	5.5
4. CONCLUSION	5.6-5.7
SECTION B: JUST SATISFACTION UNDER INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION	6.1-6.240
PART VI: ARTICLE BY ARTICLE ANALYSIS	6.1-6.240
1. INTRODUCTION	6.1-6.2
2. ARTICLE 2	6.3-6.14
3. ARTICLE 3	6.15-6.25
(1) Threatened violations	6.16-6.19
(2) Actual violations	6.20-6.25
4. ARTICLE 4	6.26
5. ARTICLE 5	6.27-6.80
(1) Article 5(1)	6.29-6.42
(a) Pecuniary loss	6.29-6.30
(b) Non-pecuniary loss	6.31-6.42
(2) Article 5(2)	6.43
(3) Article 5(3)	6.44-6.64
(a) The right to be brought promptly before a judge	6.45-6.51
(i) Pecuniary loss	6.45-6.46
(ii) Non-pecuniary loss	6.47-6.51
(b) The right to release pending trial	6.52-6.58
(i) Pecuniary loss	6.52-6.53
(ii) Non-pecuniary loss	6.54-6.58
(c) The right to trial within a reasonable time	6.59-6.64
(4) Article 5(4)	6.65-6.77
(a) Pecuniary loss	6.66-6.71
(b) Non-pecuniary loss	6.72-6.77
(5) Article 5(5)	6.78-6.80
6. ARTICLE 6	6.81-6.146
(1) Access to a court	6.84-6.93
(a) Pecuniary loss	6.85-6.87
(b) Non-pecuniary loss	6.88-6.93
(2) Independence and impartiality	6.94-6.99
(a) Pecuniary loss	6.95-6.97
(b) Non-pecuniary loss	6.98-6.99
(3) Public hearing	6.100-6.101
(4) Equality of arms	6.102-6.106
(5) Duty to give reasons	6.107-6.109
(6) Self-incrimination	6.110-6.112
(7) Unreasonable length of proceedings	6.113-6.128
(a) Civil proceedings	6.114-6.124
(b) Criminal proceedings	6.125-6.128
(8) Presumption of innocence	6.129-6.131
(9) Right to be informed of criminal charges	6.132-6.134
(10) Right to a defence	6.135-6.140
(a) Pecuniary loss	6.136
(b) Non-pecuniary loss	6.137-6.140
(11) Examination of witnesses	6.141-6.144
(12) Right to an interpreter	6.145-6.146
7. ARTICLE 7	6.147-6.151
8. ARTICLE 8	6.152-6.189
(1) Interference with correspondence	6.154-6.158
(2) Children in public care	6.159-6.164
(3) Adoption and custody disputes	6.165-6.166
(4) Telephone tapping and searching of premises	6.167-6.171
(5) Immigration cases	6.172-6.174
(6) Article 8 and sexual orientation and identity	6.175-6.182
(7) Environmental claims	6.183-6.184
(8) Miscellaneous cases	6.185-6.189
9. ARTICLE 9	6.190-6.192
10. ARTICLE 10	6.193-6.203
(1) Pecuniary loss	6.194-6.201
(2) Non-pecuniary loss	6.202-6.203
11. ARTICLE 11	6.204-6.210
12. ARTICLE 12	6.211-6.212
13. ARTICLE 14	6.213-6.222
(1) Discriminatory taxation regimes	6.215-6.216
(2) Discriminatory social security regimes	6.217
(3) Discriminatory immigration regimes	6.218
(4) Discriminatory application of retrospective laws	6.219-6.221
(5) Discriminatory civil procedure rules	6.222
14. ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO 1	6.223-6.235
(1) Expropriation	6.225-6.227
(2) Frustrated Court Judgments	6.228-6.230
(3) Delayed proceedings	6.231-6.234
(4) Destruction of property	6.235
15. ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL 1	6.236-6.238
16. ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL 1	6.239-6.240
APPENDIX A: DAMAGES FOR JUDICIAL ACTS	A.1-A.31
I. INTRODUCTION	A.1-A.3
2. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM	A.4-A.8
3. STRASBOURG CASE-LAW	A.9-A.22
(1) Benham v United Kingdom	A.10-A.12
(2) Void/voidable	A.13-A.15
(3) Perks and others v United Kingdom	A.16-A.22
4. COMMENTARY	A.23-A.30
5. CONCLUSION	A.31
APPENDIX B: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY	B

TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In this Report, wherever possible we give references to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in both the official series of reports and the European Human Rights Reports, a commercial English series (published by Sweet and Maxwell). Up to 1996, the relevant official publication was called "Series A (Judgments and Decisions)". This we cite in the form: Brogan v United Kingdom A 145-B (1988); that is Series A (Judgments and Decisions), volume 145, case B (ie the second case reported in that volume; if there is no letter, the volume contains a single judgment). The year is that of judgment. After 1996, the official series became "Reports of Judgments and Decisions". Reports in this series are cited in the form: Assenov v Bulgaria 1998-VIII p 3264; that is the 1998 volume, part VIII, at page 3264. Reports in the European Human Rights Reports are in the usual form for English law Reports published in consecutively numbered annual volumes (but we do not give a date).

More recent reports of the European Court of Human Rights are referred to by the application number and the date of judgment: Ilhan v Turkey Application no 22277/93, 27 June 2000. Transcripts of these reports are obtainable from the European Court of Human Rights website (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Decisions and reports of the European Commission of Human Rights are similarly given in both the official series and the EHRR. The official series is called "Decisions and Reports" and is published by the Council of Europe. Citations are in the form Schertenlieb v Switzerland (1980) 23 DR 137 (volume 23, page 137).

A and others v Denmark 1996-I p 3264, 22 EHRR 458	6.122 n 188;
A v France A 277-B (1993), 17 EHRR 462	6.168 n 274;
A v United Kingdom 1998-VI p 2692, 27 EHRR 611	6.24
Abdoella v Netherlands A 248-A (1992), 20 EHRR 585	6.128 n 201; 6.128 n 202
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v United Kingdom A 94 (1985), 7 EHRR 471	3.26 n 53; 6.172 n 283; 6.218
ADT v United Kingdom Application no 35765/97, 31 July 2000	3.37 n 76; 4.40 n 67; 6.177-178
AGOSI v United Kingdom A 108 (1986), 9 EHRR 1	2.15 n 35
Ahmed v Austria 1996-VI p 2195, 24 EHRR 278	6.19
Ahmet Sadik v Greece 1996-V p 1652, 24 EHRR 323	6.41 n 64
Airey v Ireland A 32 (1981), 2 EHRR 305 (merits); A 41 (1981) 3 EHRR 592 (just satisfaction)	6.85
Akdivar v Turkey 1996-IV p 1192, 23 EHRR 143 (merits); 1998-II p 711 (just satisfaction)	3.47; 6.235
Aksoy v Turkey 1996-VI p 2260, 23 EHRR 553	3.23 n 37; 3.45; 6.22
Albert and Le Compte v Belgium A 68 (1983), 13 EHRR 415 (just satisfaction)	3.31 n 61; 4.74 n 139; 6.100 n 161
Allan Jacobsson v Sweden A 163 (1989), 12 EHRR 56	6.87 n 138
Allenet de Ribemont v France A 308 (1995), 20 EHRR 557	3.49 n 99; 4.18 n 30; 6.131
Amuur v France 1996-III p 826, 22 EHRR 533	6.33
AO v Italy Application 22534/93, 30 May 2000	6.224 n 374; 6.224 n 376
Artico v Italy A 37 (1980), 3 EHRR 1	6.138
Assenov v Bulgaria 1998-VIII p 3264, 28 EHRR 652	3.46 n 93; 6.25
Averill v United Kingdom Application no 36408/97, 6 June 2000	6.137 n 219
Aydin v Turkey 1997-VI p 1866, 25 EHRR 251	3.26 n 46; 3.46 n 93; 5.6 n 30; 6.20
Ayuntamiento de M v Spain (1991) 68 DR 209	2.15 n 36
B v Austria A 175 (1990), 13 EHRR 20,	6.126
B v France A 232-C (1992), 16 EHRR 1	6.182
Baggetta v Italy A 119 (1987), 10 EHRR 325	6.127 n 200
Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain A 285-C (1994)	3.19 n 30; 3.33 n 67; 4.39 n 65; 6.101
Barthold v Germany A 90 (1985), 7 EHRR 383	6.202 n 332
Baskaya and Okçuoglu v Turkey Application nos 23536/94 and 24408/94, 8 July 1999	3.23 n 39; 5.6 n 30; 6.151; 6.198; 6.203
Beaumartin v France A 296-B (1994), 19 EHRR 485	6.98 n 157
Beldjoudi v France A 234-A (1992), 14 EHRR 801	6.172 n 283
Belilos v Switzerland A 132 (1988), 10 EHRR 466	3.31 n 61
Benham v United Kingdom 1996-III p 738, 22 EHRR 293	2.27 n 65, 6.137; 6.140; A.2 n 4; A.9- A.11, A.18, A.25; A.27.
Bergens Tidende v Norway Application no 26132/95, 2 May 2000	3.71 n 133; 6.199
Berrehab v Netherlands A 138 (1988), 11 EHRR 322	6.173
Bezicheri v Italy A 164 (1989), 12 EHRR 210	6.66 n 111
Bodén v Sweden A 125-B (1987), 10 EHRR 367	6.86
Boner v United Kingdom A 300-B (1994), 19 EHRR 246	6.137 n 217
Bönisch v Austria A 92 (1985), 9 EHRR 191 (merits); A 103 (1986), 13 EHRR 409 (just satisfaction)	3.22 n 34; 3.63; 6.97; 6.98
Borgers v Belgium A 214 (1991), 15 EHRR 92	6.104 n 167
Bowman v United Kingdom 1998-I p 105, 26 EHRR 1	6.202 n 332
Bozano v France A 111 (1986), 9 EHRR 297 (merits); A 124-F (1987), 13 EHRR 428 (just satisfaction)	3.49; 6.37 - 6.38
Bricmont v Belgium A 158 (1989), 12 EHRR 217	6.104 n 167
Brincat v Italy A 249-A (1992), 16 EHRR 591	6.46 n 74
Brogan v United Kingdom A 145-B (1989), 11 EHRR 117 (merits); A 152-B (1989), 13 EHRR 439 (just satisfaction)	6.48; 6.80 n 134
Brozicek v Italy A 167 (1989), 12 EHRR 371	3.31 n 61, 6.133
Bulut v Austria 1996-II p 346, 24 EHRR 84	6.104 n 167
Caballero v United Kingdom Application no 32819/96, 8 February 2000	3.17 n 23, 3.41 n 85, 6.58, 6.80 n 134
Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom A 48 (1982), 4 EHRR 293	2.15 n 38, 6.237 - 6.238
Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom A 80 (1984), 7 EHRR 165	3.44 n 89, 6.100 n 161, 6.156 n 248
Campbell v United Kingdom A 233-A (1992), 15 EHRR 137	6.156 n 248
Canea Catholic Church v Greece 1997-VIII p 2843, 27 EHRR 521	6.222
Castells v Spain A 236 (1992), 14 EHRR 445	6.200 n 323, 6.202
Cesky v Czech Republic Application no 33644/96, 6 June 2000	3.41 n 85, 6.62 - 6.63
Chahal v United Kingdom 1996-V p 1831, 23 EHRR 413	6.18, 6.76
Ciulla v Italy A 148 (1989), 13 EHRR 346	6.35
Comingersoll SA v Portugal Application no 35382/97, 6 April 2000	3.28, 6.123
Confédération des Syndicats Médicaux Français v France (1986) 47 DR 225	2.15 n 46
Crémieux v France A 256-B (1993), 16 EHRR 357	6.170
Curley v United Kingdom Application no 32340/96, 28 March 2000	3.41 n 85, 6.73
Darby v Sweden A 187 (1990), 13 EHRR 774	3.71, 6.215 n 357
Darnell v United Kingdom A 272 (1993), 18 EHRR 205	6.117
De Cubber v Belgium A 124-B (1987), 13 EHRR 422 (just satisfaction)	3.60, 6.96 n 150, 6.98
De Haan v Netherlands 1997-IV p 1379, 26 EHRR 417	6.99 n 159, 6.99 n 160
De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium 1997-I p 198, 25 EHRR 1	6.202
De Jong, Baijet and Van den Brink v Netherlands A 77 (1984), 8 EHRR 20	6.47 n 75
De Moor v Belgium A 292-A (1994), 18 EHRR 372	6.98 n 157
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1) A 12 (1971), 1 EHRR 373	3.21 n 32, 6.67
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 2) A 14 (1972), 1 EHRR 438	3.17 n 25, 3.17 n 29, 6.67
Delta v France A 191-A (1990), 16 EHRR 574	3.63 n 121, 6.105, 6.144
Deumeland v Germany A 100 (1986), 8 EHRR 448	2.15 n 45, 6.121
Diennet v France A 315-B (1995), 21 EHRR 554	6.100 n 161
Dombo Beheer BV v Netherlands A 274-A (1993), 18 EHRR 213	6.103 - 6.104,
Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain A 240 (1992), 14 EHRR 745	A.28 n 62
Dudgeon v United Kingdom A 45 (1981), 4 EHRR 149 (merits), A 59 (1983), 5 EHRR 573 (just satisfaction)	2.15 n 38, 3.37, 4.42 n 70, 4.51 n 89, 6.175, 6.176, 6.177 n 292
Duinhof and Duijf v Netherlands A 79 (1984), 13 EHRR 478	6.47
Eckle v Germany (Article 50) A 65 (1983), 13 EHRR 556	3.57 n 110, 3.58, 6.128
EDC v United Kingdom [1998] BCC 370	4.83, 4.84
Engel and Others v Netherlands (No 2) A 22 (1976), 1 EHRR 706	4.74 n 139, 6.36 n 55, 6.100 n 161
Eriksson v Sweden A 156 (1989), 12 EHRR 183	6.162
Erkalo v Netherlands 1998-VI p 2464, 28 EHRR 509	6.29 n 42, 6.32
Ezelin v France A 202 (1991), 14 EHRR 362	6.207
F v Switzerland A 128 (1987), 10 EHRR 411	3.31 n 62, 6.212
FCB v Italy A 208-B (1991), 14 EHRR 909	6.137 n 217
Findlay v United Kingdom 1997-I p 263, 24 EHRR 221	6.96 n 150, 6.99
Fischer v Austria A 312 (1995), 20 EHRR 349	6.100 n 161
Foti v Italy (Article 50) A 69 (1983), 13 EHRR 568	6.126 n 198
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom A 182 (1990), 13 EHRR 157 (merits); A 202 (1991), 14 EHRR 108 (just satisfaction)	3.38 n 78, 6.35, 6.80 n 134
Fredin v Sweden A 192 (1991), 13 EHRR 784	6.93 n 147
Frydlender v France Application no 30979/96, 27 June 2000	6.119 n 184
Funke v France A 256-A (1993), 16 EHRR 297	6.111, 6.170
Gaskin v United Kingdom A 160 (1989), 12 EHRR 36	6.163
Gautrin v France 1998-III p 1009, 28 EHRR 196	6.99 n 159, 6.99 n 160
Gaygusuz v Austria 1996-IV p 1129, 23 EHRR 364	4.72 n 135, 6.217
Georgiadis v Greece 1997-III p 949, 24 EHRR 606	6.109
Gillow v United Kingdom A 109 (1986), 11 EHRR 335 (merits); A124-C (1987) (just satisfaction)	6.188
Goddi v Italy A 76 (1984), 6 EHHR 457	6.139
Golder v United Kingdom A 18 (1975), 1 EHRR 524	3.38, 3.39 n 83, 5.4 n 5, 6.155
Granger v United Kingdom A 174 (1990), 12 EHRR 469	6.136 n 215
Grigoriades v Greece 1997-VII p 2575, 27 EHRR 464	6.200 n 323
Guerra v Italy 1998-I p 210, 26 EHRR 357	6.184
Guillemin v France 1997-I p 149, 25 EHRR 435 (merits), 1998-VI p 2544 (just satisfaction)	3.32 n 64, 6.124, 6.234
Guincho v Portugal A 81 (1984), 7 EHRR 223	6.233 n 396
Güleç v Turkey 1998-IV p 1698, 28 EHRR 121	5.6 n 30, 6.4 n 3, 6.10
H v Belgium A 127-B (1987), 10 EHRR 339	6.108
H v France A 162 (1989), 12 EHRR 74	3.26 n 47, 6.118
H v United Kingdom A 120 (1987), 10 EHRR 95 (merits); A 136-B (1988), 13 EHRR 449 (just satisfaction)	3.27 n 54, 3.65, 4.83, 4.84, 6.91 n 141, 6.159 n 252, 6.160 n 256
Håkansson and Sturesson v Sweden A 171 (1990), 13 EHRR 1	2.15 n 43
Halford v United Kingdom 1997-III p 1004, 24 EHRR 523	3.38 n 77, 3.50, 6.169
Hauschildt v Denmark A 154 (1989), 12 EHRR 266	3.31 n 61, 6.96
Hentrich v France A 296-A (1994), 18 EHRR 440 (merits); A 322 (1995), 21 EHRR 199	3.75 n 143, 6.225 n 379
Herczegfalvy v Austria A 244 (1992), 15 EHRR 437	6.158 n 250
Hertel v Switzerland 1998-VI p 2298, 28 EHRR 534	6.200 n 323
Hilton v United Kingdom (1988) 57 DR 108	2.15 n 39
Hokkanen v Finland A 299-A (1994), 19 EHRR 139	6.165
Hussain v United Kingdom 1996-I p 252, 22 EHRR 1	6.75
Ilhan v Turkey Application no 22277/93, 27 June 2000	3.23 n 37, 3.25 n 44, 4.61 n 109, 6.23
Incal v Turkey 1998-IV p 1547	6.200 n 323, 6.203
Informationsverein Lentia v Austria A 276 (1993), 17 EHRR 93	3.61 n 117, 6.201
Inze v Austria A 126 (1987), 10 EHRR 394	6.214 n 355
Ireland v United Kingdom A 25 (1978), 2 EHRR 25	3.31 n 59
Jamil v France A 320 (1995), 21 EHRR 65	6.150
Jersild v Denmark A 298 (1994), 19 EHRR 1	6.202
John Murray v United Kingdom 1996-I p 30, 22 EHRR 29	6.137 n 217
Johnson v United Kingdom 1997-VII p 2391, 27 EHRR 296	3.54 n 108, 6.42
Jordan v United Kingdom Application no 30280, 14 March 2000	3.41 n 85, 6.50
Kampanis v Greece A 325 (1995), 21 EHRR 43	6.66 n 111, 6.74
Kaya v Turkey 1998-I p 297, 28 EHRR 1	2.15 n 42, 3.46 n 93, 5.6 n 30, 6.4 n 3, 6.8, 6.9, 6.14 n 19
Keegan v Ireland A 290 (1994), 18 EHRR 342	6.166
K-F v Germany 1997-VII p 2657, 26 EHRR 390	6.35
Khan v United Kingdom Application no 35394/97, 12 May 2000	6.167 n 272
Kiliç v Turkey Application no 22492/93, 28 March 2000	2.15, 6.4 n 3, 6.13 - 6.14
Klass v Germany A 28 (1978), 2 EHRR 214	2.15 n 39, 2.15 n 43
Koendjbiharie v Netherlands A 185-B (1990), 13 EHRR 820	3.44 n 89
Kokkinakis v Greece A 260-A (1993), 17 EHRR 397	6.191
König v Germany A 36 (1980), 2 EHRR 469 (just satisfaction)	3.17 n 26, 3.20, 6.116
Kopp v Switzerland 1998-II p 524, 27 EHRR 91	6.168 n 274
Kruslin v France A 176-B (1990), 12 EHRR 547	5.4 n 5, 6.168
Kuopila v Finland Application no 27752/95, 27 April 2000	6.106
Kurt v Turkey 1998-III p 1152, 27 EHRR 373	5.6 n 30, 6.21
Labita v Italy Application no 26772/95, 6 April 2000	6.57, 6.240
Lala v Netherlands A 297-A (1994), 18 EHRR 586	6.137 n 217
Lamy v Belgium A 151 (1989), 11 EHRR 529	6.66 n 111
Langborger v Sweden A 155 (1989), 12 EHRR 416	6.96 n 150
Larissis v Greece 1998-I p 362, 27 EHRR 329	6.191
Le Compte, van Leuven and de Meyere v Belgium A 54 (1982), 5 EHRR 183	3.29 n 57, 6.100 n 161
Lechner and Hess v Austria A 118 (1987), 9 EHRR 490	6.233 n 396
Letellier v France A 207 (1991), 14 EHRR 83	6.53, 6.55 n 88
Lingens v Austria A 103 (1986), 8 EHRR 407	3.63 n 121, 6.195, 6.196
Litwa v Poland Application no 26629/95, 4 April 2000	6.36 n 55
Lobo Machado v Portugal 1996-I p 195, 23 EHRR 79	6.100 n 161
Loizidou v Turkey 1996-VI p 2216, 23 EHRR 513 (merits); 1998-IV p 1807, 26 EHRR CD5 (just satisfaction)	6.235 n 403
Lopez Ostra v Spain A 303-C, 20 EHRR 277	3.26 n 51, 6.183
Luberti v Italy A 75 (1984), 6 EHRR 440	3.54, 6.66 n 111, 6.122 n 188
Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v Germany A 29 (1978), 2 EHRR 149	6.146
Lukanov v Bulgaria 1997-II p 529, 24 EHRR 121	6.41, 6.42 n 68
Magee v United Kingdom Application no 28135/95, 6 June 2000	6.137 n 219
Manoussakis v Greece 1996-IV p 1346, 23 EHRR 387	6.192
Mansur v Turkey A 321 (1995), 20 EHRR 535	6.53 n 84, 6.56, 6.127 n 200
Mantovanelli v France 1997-II p 424, 24 EHRR 370	6.104 n 167
Marckx v Belgium A 31 (1979), 2 EHRR 330	4.74 n 139, 6.176, 6.187, 6.214 n 355
Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden A 226 (1992), 14 EHRR 615	6.162
Martins Moreira v Portugal A 143 (1988), 13 EHRR 517	3.62, 6.233 n 396
Massa v Italy A 265-B (1993), 18 EHRR 266	4.84 n 162, 6.119
Matos e Silva Lda v Portugal 1996-IV p 1092, 24 EHRR 573	6.233 n 396
Matthews v United Kingdom Application no 24833/94, 18 February 1999, 28 EHRR 361	6.240 n 412
Maxwell v United Kingdom A 300-C (1994), 19 EHRR 97	6.136, 6.137 n 217
McCallum v United Kingdom A 183 (1990), 13 EHRR 597	6.156 n 248
McCann v United Kingdom A 324 (1995), 21 EHRR 97	2.15 n 45, 3.56, 4.47, 5.5 n 24, 5.5 n 28, 6.4 n 2, 6.5, 6.6
McMichael v United Kingdom A 307-B (1995), 20 EHRR 205	6.164
Megyeri v Germany A 237-A (1992), 15 EHRR 584	6.72
Mentes v Turkey 1998-IV p 1686, 26 EHRR CD, CD1 3.46 n 93,	3.47
Messina v Italy A 257-H (1993)	6.158
Miailhe v France A 256-C (1993), 16 EHRR 332 (merits); A 277-C (1993) (just satisfaction)	6.170
Milasi v Italy A 119 (1987), 10 EHRR 333	6.127
Minelli v Switzerland A 62 (1983), 5 EHRR 554	6.130 n 203
Mitap and Müftüoglu v Turkey 1996-II p 402, 22 EHRR 209	6.127 n 200
Moustaquim v Belgium A 193 (1991), 13 EHRR 802	6.174
Neumeister v Austria (No 1) A 8 (1968), 1 EHRR 91	6.79 n 130, 6.102 n 164
Neumeister v Austria (No 2) A 17 (1974), 1 EHRR 136	3.34, 6.79 n 130
News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v Austria Application no 31457/96, 11 January 2000	6.200 n 323, 6.202 n 332
Nideröst-Huber v Switzerland 1997-I p 101, 25 EHRR 709	6.104 n 167
Niedbala v Poland Application no 27915/95, 4 July 2000	6.49 n 77
Niemietz v Germany A 251-B (1992), 16 EHRR 97	6.171
Nikolova v Bulgaria Application No 31195/96, 25 March 1999	3.14 n 21, 3.38 n 78, 3.39 - 3.41, 6.49 n 77, 6.54, 6.55, 6.58, 6.67 n 113, 6.72, 6.79 n 132
Norris v Ireland A 142 (1988), 13 EHRR 186	2.15 n 38, 3.37 n 76, 4.40 n 67, 6.176
O v United Kingdom A 136-A (1988), 13 EHRR 578	6.91 n 141
Oberschlick v Austria A 204 (1991), 19 EHRR 389	3.31 n 61, 6.99 n 159, 6.202 n 332
Olsson v Sweden (No 2) A 250 (1992), 17 EHRR 134	3.26 n 49, 6.91 n 141
Olsson v Sweden A 130 (1988), 11 EHRR 259	6.162
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland A 246 (1992), 15 EHRR 244	2.15 n 38, 6.197
Pakelli v Germany A 64 (1983), 6 EHRR 1	3.31 n 61, 6.137 n 217
Papamichalopoulos v Greece A 260-B (1993), 16 EHRR 440 (merits); A 330-B (1995), 21 EHRR 439 (article 50)	3.23 n 38, 3.32, 4.77 n 147, 5.6 n 30, 6.225 - 6.226
Pauwels v Belgium A 135 (1988), 11 EHRR 238	3.31 n 62, 6.46
Pélissier and Sassi v France Application no 25444/94, 25 March 1999	6.134
Pelladoah v Netherlands A 297-B (1994), 19 EHRR 81	3.31 n 61, 6.137 n 217
Perks v United Kingdom Application nos 25277/94 et al, 12 October 1999, 30 EHRR 33	3.10 n 15, 3.66 - 3.67, 4.68 n 125, 4.86 n 165, 6.140. A.9, A.16 - A.22, A.27
Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria A 227 (1992), 14 EHRR 692	6.156 n 248
Philis v Greece A 209 (1991), 13 EHRR 741	6.93 n 147
Piermont v France A 314 (1995), 20 EHRR 301	6.202 n 332
Piersack v Belgium A 53 (1982), 5 EHRR 169 (merits), A 85 (1984), 7 EHRR 251 (just satisfaction)	3.33 n 67, 6.95
Pine Valley Developments Ltd v Ireland A 222 (1991), 14 EHRR 319 (merits); A 246-B (1993), 16 EHRR 379 (just satisfaction)	3.71, 4.61, 4.89 n 172, 6.219 - 6.221, 6.224 n 375
Plattform 'Ärzte für das Leben' v Austria A 139 (1988), 13 EHRR 204	2.15 n 35
Poitrimol v France A 277-A (1993), 18 EHRR 130	6.136 n 215
Pressos Compania Naviera SA v Belgium A 332 (1995), 21 EHRR 301 (merits); 1997-IV p 1292, 24 EHRR CD 16 (just satisfaction)	3.68, 4.86 n 165, 6.229 - 6.230
Pudas v Sweden A 125-A (1987), 10 EHRR 380	6.92, 6.93
Punzelt v Czech Republic Application no 31315/96, 25 April 2000	3.41 n 85, 6.64
Quinn v France A 311 (1995), 21 EHRR 529	6.40
R (B) v United Kingdom A 136-D (1988), 13 EHRR 588 (just satisfaction)	6.91 n 141
R v United Kingdom A 136-E (1988), 13 EHRR 457 (just satisfaction)	6.91 n 141
Radio ABC v Austria 1997-VI p 2188, 25 EHRR 185	6.201
Raimondo v Italy A 281-A (1994), 18 EHRR 237	6.224 n 376
Raninen v Finland 1997-VIII p 2804, 26 EHRR 563	6.36 n 57
Ribitsch v Austria A 336 (1995), 21 EHRR 573	6.24
Ringeisen v Austria (No 2) A 15 (1972), 1 EHRR 504	3.19 n 30, 3.35, 6.61 n 104
RMD v Switzerland 1997-VI p 2003, 28 EHRR 224	6.77
Rotaru v Romania Application no 28341/95, 4 May 2000	6.189
Ruiz Torija v Spain A 303-A (1994), 19 EHRR 553	6.109
Ruiz-Mateos v Spain A 262 (1993), 16 EHRR 505	3.61, 6.104 n 167
S v Switzerland A 220 (1991), 14 EHRR 670	6.138 n 220
Saidi v France A 261-C (1993), 17 EHRR 251	3.31 n 61, 6.104 n 167, 6.144
Sakik v Turkey 1997-VII p 2609, 26 EHRR 662	3.26 n 52, 6.51, 6.80 n 134
Salesi v Italy A 257-E (1993), 26 EHRR 187	6.233 n 396
Salman v Turkey Application no 21986/93, 27 June 2000	3.25 n 44, 4.61 n 109, 6.4 n 3, 6.11, 6.23 n 34
Saunders v United Kingdom 1996-VI p 2044, 23 EHRR 313	3.57 n 110, 6.112
Schmidt v Germany A 291-B (1994), 18 EHRR 513	6.215, 6.216 n 360
Schönenberger and Durmaz v Switzerland A 137 (1988), 11 EHRR 202	3.44 n 89, 6.156 n 248, 6.158 n 251
Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland A 263 (1993), 16 EHRR 405 (merits); A 305-A (1995), 21 EHRR 404 (just satisfaction)	3.73, 6.214 n 355
Scollo v Italy A 315-C (1995), 22 EHRR 514	6.114, 6.233
Scopelliti v Italy A 278 (1993), 17 EHRR 493	6.120
Scott v Spain 1996-VI p 2382, 24 EHRR 391	6.60 n 100
SP, DP and T v United Kingdom Application no 23715/94 (1996), 22 EHRR CD 148	2.15 n 44
Sekanina v Austria A 266-A (1993), 17 EHRR 221	6.130
Selçuk and Asker v Turkey 1998-II p 891, 26 EHRR 477	3.46 n 94, 3.47, 6.22, 6.235 n 402
Sevtap Veznedaroglu v Turkey Application no 32357/96, 11 April 2000	6.25
Sidiropoulos v Greece 1998-IV p 1594, 27 EHRR 633	6.209 n 345
Sigurjonsson v Iceland A 264 (1993), 16 EHRR 462	6.206 n 336
Silva Pontes v Portugal A 286-A (1994), 18 EHRR 156	6.233 n 396
Silver v United Kingdom A 61 (1983), 5 EHRR 347 (merits), A 67 (1983), 6 EHRR 62 (just satisfaction)	3.44, 3.56 n 109, 4.52 n 90, 6.156, 6.157
Smith and Grady v United Kingdom Application nos 33985/96 and 33986/96, 25 July 2000	1.5 n 4, 3.14 n 22, 3.21, 3.23 n 35, 3.23 n 36, 3.25 n 45, 3.51, 3.74, 4.41 n 68, 4.57, 4.61 n 108, 6.179 - 6.181
Socialist Party v Turkey 1998-III p 1233, 27 EHRR 51	5.6 n 30, 6.210
Soering v United Kingdom A 161 (1989), 11 EHRR 439	2.15 n 40, 6.17
Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden A 52 (1982), 5 EHRR 35, (1984) (merits); A 88 (1984), 7 EHRR 256 (just satisfaction)	3.11 n 17, 3.24, 4.22 n 39, 4.61, 4.68 n 127, 4.79 n 150, 6.114, 6.231 - 6.232
Sramek v Austria A 84 (1984), 7 EHRR 351	6.96 n 150
Stallinger and Kuso v Austria 1997-II p 666, 26 EHRR 81	6.100 n 161
Steel v United Kingdom 1998-VII p 2719, 28 EHRR 603	6.36, 6.203 n 333
Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece A 301-B (1994), 19 EHRR 293	3.70, 3.72, 5.6 n 30, 6.228
Thlimmenos v Greece Application no 34369/97	6.214 n 355
Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland A 239 (1992), 14 EHRR 843	6.200 n 323
Timurtas v Turkey Application no 23531/94, 13 June 2000	6.4 n 3
Tomasi v France A 241-A (1992), 15 EHRR 1	3.22 n 34, 6.61
Toth v Austria A 224 (1991), 14 EHRR 551	6.60
Tre Traktörer AB v Sweden A 159 (1989), 13 EHRR 309	2.15 n 35
Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v Greece 1997-III p 909, 25 EHRR 198	3.22 n 34, 6.30, 6.79 n 131, 6.80 n 133, 6.80 n 134, A.2 n 4
TW v Malta Application nos 25644/94 and 25642/94, 29 April 1999, 29 EHRR 185	3.38 n 78, 3.41 n 85, 6.49
Unión Alimentaria Sanders SA v Spain A 157 (1989), 12 EHRR 24	6.233 n 396
United Communist Party of Turkey v Turkey 1998-I p 1, 26 EHRR 121	6.208 - 6.209
Unterpertinger v Austria A 110 (1986), 13 EHRR 175	6.144 n 231
Valenzuela Contreras v Spain 1998-V p 1909, 28 EHRR 483	6.168 n 274
Valikova v Bulgaria Application no 41488/98, 18 May 2000	6.4 n 3, 6.12
Vallee v France A 289 (1994), 18 EHRR 549	6.119 n 184
Valsamis v Greece 1996-VI p 2312, 24 EHRR 294	6.192
Van der Leer v Netherlands A 170 (1990), 12 EHRR 567	3.26 n 48, 6.43
Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe v Netherlands A 78 (1984), 13 EHRR 461	6.47 n 75
Van Droogenbroeck v Belgium A 63 (1983), 13 EHRR 546 (just satisfaction)	6.67 n 113
Van Mechelen v Netherlands 1997-III p 691, 25 EHRR 647 (merits); 1997-VII p 2426 (just satisfaction)	6.144 n 231
Van Orshoven v Belgium 1997-III p 1039, 26 EHRR 55	6.104 n 167
Van Raalte v Netherlands 1997-I p 173, 24 EHRR 503	6.216
Vasilescu v Romania 1998-III p 1064, 28 EHRR 241	6.227
Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v Austria A 302 (1994), 20 EHRR 55	6.200
Vidal v Belgium A 235-B (1992) (merits); A 235-E (1992) (just satisfaction)	6.144
W v United Kingdom (1983) 32 DR 190	2.15 n 42
W v United Kingdom A 121 (1987), 10 EHRR 29 (merits); A 136-C (1988), 13 EHRR 453 (just satisfaction)	3.27 n 54, 5.5 n 14, 6.90 - 6.91, 6.159 n 253, 6.161
Weber v Switzerland A 177 (1990), 12 EHRR 508	6.100 n 161, 6.202 n 332
Weeks v United Kingdom A 114 (1987), 10 EHRR 293 (merits), A 143-A (1988), 13 EHRR 435 (just satisfaction)	3.64, 6.68 -6.71, 6.75 n 126
Welch v United Kingdom A 307-A (1995), 20 EHRR 247 (merits); 1996-II p 386, 21 EHRR CD1 (just satisfaction)	3.57 n 110, 6.149
Werner v Austria, Szücs v Austria 1997-VII p 2468, 26 EHRR 310	6.100 n 161
Windisch v Austria A 186 (1990), 13 EHRR 281 (merits); A 255-D (1993) (just satisaction)	3.33 n 67, 6.142 n 227
X and Church of Scientology v Sweden (1979) 16 DR 68	2.15 n 35
X v France A 234-C (1991), 14 EHRR 483	2.15 n 45
X v Germany Yearbook 1 (1955-1957)	2.15 n 44
X v Norway Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, vol 4, p 270	2.15 n 37
X v United Kingdom A 55 (1982), 5 EHRR 192	3.31 n 62
Yagci and Sargin v Turkey A 319 (1995), 20 EHRR 505	6.56 n 93
Yasa v Turkey 1998-VI p 2411, 28 EHRR 408	5.6 n 30, 6.4 n 3, 6.9
Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom A 44 (1981) 4 EHRR 38 (merits); A 55 (1982), 5 EHRR 201 (just satisfaction)	3.23 n 35, 3.23 n 36, 3.26 n 50, 3.29 n 57, 6.206
Z v Finland 1997-I p 323, 25 EHRR 371	6.186
Zana v Turkey 1997-VII p 2533, 27 EHRR 667	6.136 n 215, 6.138 n 220

TABLE OF OTHER CASES

AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 507	4.71 n 133, 4.72 n 136
Allan v Barclay (1864) 2M 873	5.5 n 20
Alliance & Leicester Building Society v Edgestop Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 1462	4.24 n 43, 4.49 n 81, 4.49 n 84
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907, C.A	4.85 n 164
Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978) 83 DLR (3rd) 452	4.66
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147	A.5, A.14 n 39, A.14 n 42
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223	A.3
Attorney-General v Blake [1998] Ch 439	4.75 n 141, 4.75 n 143, 4.76
Baigent v British Broadcasting Corporation 1999 GWD 10-474	5.5 n 16
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428	4.78 n 149
Black v North British Railway Co 1908 SC 444	5.5 n 9,
Bradley v Menley & James Ltd 1913 SC 923	4.74 n 138
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany, R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd [1996] ECR I-1029	4.54
Carey v Piphus (1978) 435 US 247	4.14 n 20
Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 KB 786	4.85 n 164
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978	4.47 n 80
Downie v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police 1997 SCLR 603	5.5 n 10
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158	4.24 n 42
Duncan v Ross Harper & Murphy 1993 SLT 105	5.5 n 27
Forsikringsaktielskapet Vesta v Butcher (No. 1) [1989] 2 AC 852	4.49 n 84
Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786	3.38 n 77, 4.29 n 51, 4.72 n 137
Frankovitch v Italy [1991] ECR 1\5357	4.30 n 52
Gilbert v Yorston 1997 SLT 879	5.5 n 15
Halifax Building Society v Thomas [1996] Ch 217	4.76 n 145
Heil v Rankin [2000] 2 WLR 1173	3.6 n 6, 4.7 - 4.9, 4.27, 4.29 n 51, 4.41, 4.59, 4.66, 4.67, 4.94
Henderson v Chief Constable, Fife Police 1988 SLT 361	5.5 n 11
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750	4.85 n 163
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837	4.80 n 151
John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586	3.6 n 5
Kenyon v Bell 1953 SC 125	5.5 n 22
Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (No 5), The Times 7 April 2000	4.80 n 152
Kyle v P & J Stormonth Darling WS 1993 SC 57	5.5 n 22
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25	4.8 n 11, 4.14
Lord v Allison (1986) 3 BCLR (2d) 300	4.72 n 137
Lunt v Liverpool City Justices (CA unreported) 5 March 1991	3.10 n 15
Maharaj v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979] AC 385	4.16 - 4.17, 4.19, A.28, A.29
McCreadie v Thomson 1907 SC 1176	A.4 n 10
McKeen v Chief Constable, Lothian and Borders Police 1994 SLT 93	5.5 n 14
Mediana, The [1900] AC 113	4.74 n 138
Ministry of Defence v Ashman (1993) 66 P & CR 195	4.75 n 142
O'Connor v Isaacs [1956] 2 QB 288	A.5 n 22, A.30 n 69
O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237	A.5 n 20
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co, The Wagon Mound [1961] AC 388, PC	4.24 n 41, 4.80 n 151
Penarth Dock Engineering Co Ltd v Pounds [1963] 1 Lloyd's Rep 359	4.75 n 142
Quinn v Burch Bros (Builders) Ltd[1966] 2 QB 370	4.49 n 83
R v East Berks HA ex p Walsh [1985] QB 152	2.12 n 26
R v Governor of H M Brockhill Prison ex p Evans No.2 [1999] 2 WLR 103 (CA)	4.68 n 126
R v Governor of H M Prison Brockhill ex p Evans, HL, unreported, 27 July 2000	A.2 n 4, A.13 n 39
R v Home Secretary ex p Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890	A.14 n 40
R v Hull University Visitor ex p Page [1993] AC 682	A.14 n 42
R v Manchester City Magistrates' Court ex p Davies [1989] QB 631	A.5, A.7, A.10, A.11, A.12, A.18, A.30, A.31,
R v McGillivary (1990) 56 CCC (3d) 304	4.25
R v Oldham Justices ex p Cawley [1996] 1 All ER 464	A.13 n 40
R v Poole Justices ex p Benham [1991] 4 Admin LR 161	A.10
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 3) [1992] QB 680.	4.56
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd and others (No 5) [2000] AC 524	4.30 n 52, 4.56 n 97
R v Waltham Forest Justices ex p Solanke [1986] QB 983	A.4 n 12, A.26 n 58
Re McC(A Minor) [1985] 1 AC 528	A.4 n 10, A.5, A.6, A.8, A.18, A.23, A.25, A.30
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360	4.53 n 92, 5.5 n 23, 5.5 n 25
Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129	4.69, 4.71 n 133, 4.72
Russell v Dickson 1998 SLT 96	A.4 n 10
Russell v Wilson 1994 SLT 660	A.4 n 10
Schachter v Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679	4.14 n 20
Simpson v Attorney General, Baigent's case [1994] 3 NZLR 667	4.19, 4.31 n 57, 4.72 n 137, 4.88 n 170
Smith New Court Securities v Citibank NA [1997] AC 254 (HL)	4.24 n 42
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405	4.80 n 151
Smith v Wade (1983) 461 US 30	4.72 n 137
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 218 (CA)	4.47 n 80
Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498	3.6 n 5, 3.10 n 15, 4.9 n 15, 4.68
Wallace v Manchester City Council (1998) 30 HLR 1111 CA	4.68 n 127
Weir v Wyper 1992 SLT 579	5.5 n 27
Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345	4.8 n 13, 4.9 n 14, 4.90 n 176
Wright v British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773	4.90 n 177
X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633	4.40 n 66