header-logo header-logo

28 February 2008
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Law digest
printer mail-detail

CIVIL LITIGATION

Ofulue v Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7, [2008] All ER (D) 236 (Jan)

 

If a party asserts that a European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) right is engaged, the court must take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence.

 

This does not inevitably mean that the domestic court must follow the Strasbourg court. Rather, the court has to have very good reasons for departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Special circumstances justifying departure might exist if the domestic court is satisfied that the Strasbourg court had misunderstood the effect of domestic law. If the rule of domestic law creates a discretion rather than an absolute rule of law, the domestic court might come to the conclusion that the discretion should be exercised in a different way from that in which it was in fact exercised in the case before the Strasbourg court.

 

If the Strasbourg court finds that a particular area falls within the margin of appreciation of contracting states, this is a signal to the national judge that the decision of the national authorities as to the content of rights within that area should receive appropriate respect.

In the absence of special circumstances:

 

(i) if domestic law within an area found by the Strasbourg court to be within the contracting states’ margin of appreciation is challenged before an English court, the English court should consider whether or not the domestic rule serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate (according the appropriate degree of respect to the decision maker in domestic law) and should find that the law is Convention-compliant if those tests are satisfied; and

 

(ii) where the Strasbourg court has itself already carried out this exercise, the English court should follow the decision of the Strasbourg court (Lady Justice Arden at paras 31–37).

 

Issue: 7310 / Categories: Case law , Legal services , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll