 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
In Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1, 13, Lord Wilberforce pointed out that
interference with this common law constitutional right was in principle capable of
amounting to a contempt.
Unfortunately, this line of cases does not appear to have been considered in Ebert v
Venvil. Although Brooke LJ, applying Ebert v Venvil in Paragon Finance plc v
Noueiri (Practice Note) [2001] 1 WLR 2357, did mention the Bremer Vulkan case, the
difficulty was not discussed.
Notes
See also Reg v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198 at 210,
per Steyn LJ: "It is a principle of our law that every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a
court. In Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1, 13, Lord Wilberforce described it as a ‘basic right.' Even
in our unwritten constitution it must rank as a constitutional right."
|
 |
|