Coventry v Lawrence (No. 3)

Last updated

Coventry v Lawrence
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameCoventry and others (Respondents) v Lawrence and another (Appellants)
Argued9-10 & 12 February 2015
Decided22 July 2015
Neutral citation [2015] UKSC 50
Case history
Prior history[2012] EWCA Civ 26
Holding
The Access to Justice Act 1999 scheme is compatible with Article 6, ECHR.
Case opinions
MajorityLords Neuberger, Mance, Dyson, Sumption and Carnwath
DissentLady Hale and Lord Clarke
Area of law
Costs in English law; Right to a fair trial

Coventry v Lawrence (No. 3) was a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning the compatibility of the Access to Justice Act 1999 with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Contents

Facts

The case is a follow up to Coventry v Lawrence and Coventry v Lawrence (No. 2) and originally began as a claim in nuisance against the operators of a local speedway stadium by two local residents. [1]

The residents' lawyers acted under a conditional fee agreement also more commonly known as 'no win no fee'. [2] They eventually won the case and the stadium owner was ordered to pay 60% of the other sides costs. [3] This included not only their base costs but also a success fee and an After-the-Event (ATE) insurance premium. [4] In this case the stadium owner did not challenge his liability to pay the base costs but argued that his liability for both the success fee and ATE premium would infringe his article 6 (right to a fair trial) and/or article 1 of the first protocol (right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions) rights. [4]

Judgment

Supreme Court

In Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28 Lord Bingham noted that the Access to Justice Act 1999 has three principal aims: [5]

  1. To contain the rising cost of legal aid.
  2. To improve access to the courts for claimant with meritorious claims.
  3. To discourage weak claims.

In spite of this the European Court of Human Rights held in MGN Ltd v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 5 that the scheme had a number of flaws that made it incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [6]

Lord Neuberger gave the leading judgment of the court and held that the present case is not about the flaws of the Access to Justice Act 1999 but rather whether it is a proportionate way of achieving the aims set out by Lord Bingham. With this in mind Neuberger held that: [7]

64. In our judgment, there is a powerful argument that the 1999 Act scheme is compatible with the Convention for the simple reason that it is a general measure which was (i) justified by the need to widen access to justice to litigants following the withdrawal of legal aid; (ii) made following wide consultation and (iii) fell within the wide area of discretionary judgment of the legislature and rule-makers to make.

It was noted that there is no scheme that will perfectly provide access to justice in the wake of the withdrawal of legal aid from most civil cases yet the European Court of Human Rights acknowledges that any such scheme may still be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights even where it operates harshly in certain individual cases. [8] Overall the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides a "rational and coherent scheme for providing access to justice" that is compatible with the Convention. [9]

The case began because of the noise caused by a local speedway stadium. Speedway start 1.jpg
The case began because of the noise caused by a local speedway stadium.

Dissenting judgment

Lord Clarke (with whom Lady Hale agreed) gave a dissenting judgment that suggested the Access to Justice Act 1999 was not compatible with the Convention because it discriminated between defendants and imposed heavy liabilities on some but not others. [10]

Reaction

Reacting to the judgment David Greene said: [11]

As a claimant lawyer I welcomed the finding but I felt disappointed that after all this time and angst the court said “no change”, notwithstanding that it was the Supreme Court that seemed to start this hare running. The judgment is fascinating reading but the whole process has been somewhat of a damp squib.

Others have considered the potential impact if the minority judgment had been successful: [10]

It is salutary to note that two members of the Supreme Court would have struck down a regime on which a significant section of the legal sector had relied and would have held that there was no legitimate expectation that that regime would continue to obtain. That would, in turn, have led to the extreme repercussions discussed in my previous columns, effectively putting many firms in the very vulnerable position of relying on success in a class action against the government.

It has also been suggested that the case may be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption</span> English lawyer and judge

Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018.

<i>Campbell v MGN Ltd</i> 2004 House of Lords decision on privacy in English law

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd[2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir</span> President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Robert John Reed, Baron Reed of Allermuir, is a Scottish judge who has been President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since January 2020. He was the principal judge in the Commercial Court in Scotland before being promoted to the Inner House of the Court of Session in 2008. He is an authority on human rights law in Scotland and elsewhere; he served as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights. He was also a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom constitutional law</span> Law that constitutes the body politic of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom constitutional law concerns the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the oldest continuous political system on Earth, the British constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over centuries from common law statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus. In 1215, Magna Carta required the King to call "common counsel" or Parliament, hold courts in a fixed place, guarantee fair trials, guarantee free movement of people, free the church from the state, and it enshrined the rights of "common" people to use the land. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution 1688, Parliament won supremacy over the monarch, the church and the courts, and the Bill of Rights 1689 recorded that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free". The Act of Union 1707 unified England, Wales and Scotland, while Ireland was joined in 1800, but the Republic of Ireland formally separated between 1916 and 1921 through bitter armed conflict. By the Representation of the People Act 1928, almost every adult man and woman was finally entitled to vote for Parliament. The UK was a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.

<i>Cadder v HM Advocate</i>

Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 is a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the way in which police in Scotland detained suspects was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and was therefore unlawful in terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

<i>R v Horncastle</i>

R v Horncastle & Others[2009] UKSC 14 was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom regarding hearsay evidence and the compatibility of UK hearsay law with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case represents another stage in the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the higher courts of the United Kingdom about whether it is acceptable to base convictions "solely or to a decisive extent" on evidence made by a witness who is identified but does not appear in court.

<i>R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis</i>

R v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011.

Theodore Huckle is a Welsh barrister. He served as the first and to date only independent professional Counsel General for Wales, the statutory Law Officer to the Welsh Government, during the governmental term of the 4th Assembly/Senedd. Upon nomination by the First Minister, his appointment was approved by the Senedd and formally made by the Queen on 21 July 2011, although he had been acting Counsel General from his birthday on 27 May 2011.

<i>R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice</i> Case brought before UK Supreme Court regarding the right to die in English law.

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice was a 2014 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that considered the question of the right to die in English law.

<i>R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills</i>

R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning student loans in the United Kingdom.

<i>Beghal v DPP</i>

Beghal v DPP was a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning powers of the police in England and Wales.

<i>Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others</i> Northern Ireland, UK discrimination, and freedom of speech and religious expression, legal case

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others[2018] UKSC 49 was a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom discrimination case between Gareth Lee and Ashers Baking Company, owned by Daniel and Amy McArthur of Northern Ireland. Lee brought the case after Ashers refused to make a cake with a message promoting same-sex marriage, citing their religious beliefs. Following appeals, the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings in favour of Lee and made a judgement in favour of Ashers. The court said there was no discrimination against Lee and that Ashers' objections were with the message they were being asked to promote. The court held that people in the United Kingdom could not legally be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagreed with. The case became known in the British and Irish media as the "gay cake" case.

References

  1. ↑ Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13
  2. ↑ Hayes, Lucy (16 March 2015). "Case preview: Coventry & Ors v Lawrence & Anor UKSC 2012/76". UKSC blog. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
  3. ↑ "Coventry v Lawrence: Supreme Court Rules for the Status Quo". Horwich Farrelly Solicitors. 22 July 2015. Retrieved 21 August 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  4. 1 2 Underwood, Kerry (23 January 2015). "Coventry: a costs calamity in waiting?". New Law Journal . Retrieved 21 August 2015.
  5. ↑ Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2]
  6. ↑ MGN Ltd v UK (2011) 53 EHRR 5
  7. ↑ Coventry v Lawrence (No 3) [2015] UKSC 50
  8. ↑ Coventry v Lawrence (No 3) [2015] UKSC 50, [62]
  9. ↑ Coventry v Lawrence (No 3) [2015] UKSC 50, [83]
  10. 1 2 "COVENTRY V LAWRENCE, OR LESSONS FROM A NEAR MISS: A PRACTICAL VIEW FROM THE BAR". Littleton. 14 August 2015. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
  11. ↑ Greene, David (30 July 2015). "To Coventry & back—a damp squib?". New Law Journal . Retrieved 21 August 2015.
  12. ↑ "How insurers' position is affected by yesterday's news on Coventry v Lawrence and even higher court fees". DWF Insurance. 23 July 2015. Retrieved 21 August 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.