 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
This is of considerable importance in the context of civil procedure. In one of the
earliest reported cases on the CPR after their adoption in England and Wales, Lord
Woolf repelled an attempt by counsel to introduce an Art 6(1) objection to an order for
a single joint expert stating :-
"It would be unfortunate if case management decisions in this jurisdiction involved the need
to refer to the learning of the European Court of Human Rights in order for them to be
resolved. In my judgment, cases such as this do not require any consideration of human
rights issues, certainly not issues under article 6. It would be highly undesirable if the
consideration of case management issues was made more complex by the injection into them
of article 6 style arguments. I hope that judges will be robust in resisting any attempt to
introduce those arguments. Certainly, on this occasion, this court gave Mr Temple short shrift.
Notwithstanding any high regard for Mr Temple, I consider that that was the only way in
which that argument could be treated."
This rejection of interlocutory satellite litigation based on human rights issues is
consistent with Strasbourg court's view that Art 6(1) is inapplicable to interlocutory
proceedings. However, Lord Woolf plainly accepts that the position differs where the
matter is decisive of a person's rights and obligations. Thus, in AG v Covey; AG v
Mathews,
his Lordship was dealing with conjoined appeals involving persons against
whom vexatious litigant orders had been made. Such orders may shut out the litigant
from access to the courts in a manner decisive of his rights. In deciding the appeal,
Lord Woolf referred to the E Ct HR's decision in Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v United
Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442, for guidance as to when restricting the right of access
to the courts may be legitimate and, applying the general principles discussed above,
upheld the decision of the Divisional Court.
Notes
Daniels v Walker [2000] 1 WLR 1382 at 1386-7.
[2001] EWCA Civ 254, 19 February 2001 at §§60-61.
|
 |
|