Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Uneasy Relationship: The Influence of National and European Fundamental Rights in English Private Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 15))

  • 960 Accesses

Abstract

There is a weak system of fundamental rights in English common law which could be removed by the clear wording of a statute, but fundamental rights in the proper sense were first acquired when the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. These rights cannot override statutes, but they do have a limited horizontal effect. This effect appears to be indirect and based on the public bodies bound by human rights under section 6 of the 1998 Act including courts and tribunals. This has, amongst other things, created a right of privacy, extended rights in tort and strengthened rights in family law. Besides this there are areas of ordinary law (case law and especially legislation) which create rights of the kind protected by fundamental rights systems (for example in equality law, consumer and inheritance rights, and law about availability of information). Some of this law emanates from the European Union.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for example Smith v Director of Serious Fraud Office (1992), where it was held that an accused’s right to refuse to answer questions asked after the making of a charge (which is part of the privilege against self-incrimination) was taken away by s 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (questioning by the Serious Fraud Office).

  2. 2.

    See for example R (Burke) v General Medical Council (2005) (Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR did not advance argument or alter common law protection of life); R v Abdroikov (2005) (no need to distinguish between positions under Article 6 of the ECHR and at common law as to jury bias).

  3. 3.

    In Ghaidan v Mendoza (2004) the interpretative obligation under section 3 of the HRA 1998 was held to extend beyond cases where the legislation is ambiguous, and might require the court to depart from Parliament’s legislative intention; the court should only resort to a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 if a human rights compatible interpretation would be inconsistent with the underlying thrust of the legislation.

  4. 4.

    Moreham (2007, 374–375) considers the view of Lord Woolf in A v B (2002) at paragraph 4 that courts as public authorities could comply with their obligation under s 6 HRA 1998 by absorbing ECHR rights into private law (which Moreham considers to be indirect effect) and the view of Buxton L J in McKennit v Ash (2006) (which Moreham regards as direct horizontal effect and which has been widely criticised). Lord Steyn expressed the view (in Steyn (2005, 353, 354)) that, on the basis of Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004), ECHR rights do not have direct but do have indirect horizontal effect.

  5. 5.

    Leeds City Council v Price, Kay v Lambeth LBC (2006), per Lord Bingham paragraphs 42-5.

  6. 6.

    See further Sect. 18.2.2 below.

  7. 7.

    See Nagle v Feilden (1966) (refusal of Jockey Club to grant trainer’s licence to woman – court accepted she had an arguable claim for relief). This has now been superseded by statutory provisions preventing discrimination on certain grounds eg race, sex and largely based on EU law.

  8. 8.

    See also King v Michael Faraday & Partners Ltd (1939) (against public policy to enforce an agreement depriving director of sole means of support).

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 18.6.2 below. See also Shanshal v Al-Kishtaini (2001) and Sect. 18.3.5 below.

  10. 10.

    Dependants can include a wide variety of relatives: in particular a spouse or former spouse, civil partner or former civil partner, a person living with the victim for at least the last 2 years as a spouse or civil partner, and persons treated by the victim as children or parents; illegitimate children are to be treated as legitimate.

  11. 11.

    Rabone v Penine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012); Reynolds v UK (2012).

  12. 12.

    Wainwright v Home Office (2003). But see Wainwright v UK (2007).

  13. 13.

    JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust (2003), paragraphs 55–58.

  14. 14.

    See Directive 85/374 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  15. 15.

    See for example Street v Mountford (1985).

  16. 16.

    But not always: those that may bind without being registered are called overriding interests.

  17. 17.

    Manchester City Council v Pinnock (2010).

  18. 18.

    Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Country Council (2010).

  19. 19.

    See generally the Children Act 1989 and Scott v UK (2000): “consideration of what is in the best interests of the child is always of crucial importance”.

  20. 20.

    Hermann v Charlesworth (1905).

  21. 21.

    Radmacher v Granatino (2010) relating to a German pre-nuptial agreement. See also Sanders (2010).

  22. 22.

    B and L v UK (2006) leading to the Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007 (SI 2007/438).

  23. 23.

    Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) superseded by the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

  24. 24.

    Gaskin v UK (1990).

  25. 25.

    EH v London Borough of Greenwich (2010).

  26. 26.

    Barca v Mears (2004).

  27. 27.

    Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones (2003).

  28. 28.

    This section was held to be justified and proportionate and not a breach of the Article 9 ECHR rights of parents who agreed with corporal punishment in R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2005). Other corporal punishment might be allowed, but in A v UK (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) (1998) the caning of a child by its stepfather was held to be sufficiently severe to breach Article 3 ECHR and the state had failed to provide protection, as the stepfather had been acquitted on basis of reasonable chastisement.

  29. 29.

    This was stated to be because marriage had special status under Article 12 ECHR, there was no legally binding agreement between them, and there was a fundamental difference between their relationship and marriage or civil partnership.

Bibliography

  • Brinktrine, R. 2001. The horizontal effect of human rights in German constitutional law: the British debate on horizontality and the possible role model of the German doctrine of “mittelbare Drittwirkung der Grundrechte”. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 421–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws, Sir J. 1993. Is the High Court the guardian of fundamental constitutional rights? Public Law Spr: 59–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreham, N. 2007. Privacy and horizontality: relegating the common law. Law Quarterly Review, 123: 373–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S. 2009. Human rights and copyrights: a look at practical jurisprudence with reference to author’s rights. European Intellectual Property Review 31(2): 88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nield S., and Hopkins N. 2013. Human rights and mortgage repossession: beyond property law using article 8. Legal Studies 33(3): 431–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. 2010. Private autonomy and marital property agreements. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59(3): 571–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. 2008. Damages in tort and under the Human Rights Act: remedial or functional separation? Cambridge Law Journal 67(3): 606–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyn, Lord 2005. 2002–2005. Laying the foundations of human rights law in the United Kingdom. European Human Rights Law Review 4: 349–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R. 2013. The Modern Law of Contract 10th edit. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Case Law

  • A v UK (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) ((1998) 27 EHRR 611).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashdown v Telegraph Group ([2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2001] 3 WLR 1368).

    Google Scholar 

  • B & S Contracts & Designs Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd ([1984] ICR 419 (CA)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barca v Mears ([2004] EWHC 2170 (Ch)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton v Armstrong ([1976] AC 104 (PC)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn v Attorney General ([1971] WLR 137).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boustany v Pigott ((1995) 69 P & CR 298, PC (Ant)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford Corporation v Pickles ([1895] AC 587).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burden and another v UK (App no 13378/05 [2008] All ER (D) 391 (Apr)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457).

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell and Cosans v UK (Series A, No 48; (1993) 2 EHRR 293).

    Google Scholar 

  • Derbyshire v Times Newspapers ([1993] 1 All ER 1011).

    Google Scholar 

  • EH v London Borough of Greenwich ([2010] EWCA Civ 344).

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley v Skinner (No 2) ([2001] UKHL 49, [2002] 2 AC 732]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskin v UK ((1990) 12 EHRR 36).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaidan v Mendoza ([2004] UKHL 30).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority ([1986] AC 112).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann v Charlesworth ([1905] 2 KB 123).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire ([1988] 2 WLR 1049).

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwood v Miller’s Timber Co ([1917] 1 KB 305).

    Google Scholar 

  • HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 1776).

    Google Scholar 

  • J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v UK Grand Chamber (2007) (app no 44302/02).

    Google Scholar 

  • JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust ([2003] EWCA Civ 1151, [2004] QB 558).

    Google Scholar 

  • King v Michael Faraday & Partners Ltd ([1939] 2 KB 753).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeds City Council v Price, Kay v Lambeth LBC ([2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 AC 465).

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchester City Council v Pinnock ([2010] UKSC 45).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna v British Aluminium ([2002] Env LR 30).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKennit v Ash ([2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB 195).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagle v Feilden ([1966] 2 QB 633).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville v Dominion of Canada News Co Ltd ([1915] 3 KB 556).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofulue v Bossert ([2009] UKHL 16, [2008] HRLR 20).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea v MGN Ltd ([2001] EMLR 40).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osman v UK ([1998] 29 EHRR 245).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck v UK (App 44647/98, 28 January 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Abdroikov ([2005] EWCA Crim 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham ([1997] 2 All ER 779).

    Google Scholar 

  • R v Lyons ([2002] UKHL 44).

    Google Scholar 

  • R (Burke) v General Medical Council ([2005] EWCA Civ 1003).

    Google Scholar 

  • R (Malik) v Waltham Forest NHS Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health ([2007] EWCA Civ 265).

    Google Scholar 

  • R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ([2005] UKHL 15)).

    Google Scholar 

  • R (Woods) v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police ([2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2010] 1 WLR 123).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabone v Penine Care NHS Foundation Trust ([2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72).

    Google Scholar 

  • Radmacher v Granatino ([2010] UKSC 42).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers ([1994] QB 670).

    Google Scholar 

  • Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) ([2001] 2 WLR 480).

    Google Scholar 

  • Re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others ([2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds v UK ((2012) 55 EHRR 35).

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No. 2) ([2001] UKHL 44, [2002] 2 AC 773 (HL)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth ([1996] 1 AC 344 (HL)).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rylands v Fletcher ((1868) LR 3 HL 330).

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Jones ((2003) The Times 13 August).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanshal v Al-Kishtaini ([2001] EWCA Civ 264, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 601).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith v Director of Serious Fraud Office ([1992] 3 All ER 456).

    Google Scholar 

  • Street v Mountford ([1985] AC 809).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stretch v UK ((2003) The Times, 3 July)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoburn v Sunderland City Council ([2002] 3 WLR 247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolstoy Miloslavsky v UK (1995 Series A, No 316).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Colle v Chief Constable of Herfordshire ([2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225).

    Google Scholar 

  • Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Country Council ([2010] EWCA Civ 1214).

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hannover v Germany (App 59320/00 (2005) 40 EHRR 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright v Home Office ([2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright v UK (app 12350/04 26 September 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson v Carnley ([1908] 1 KB 729).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No. 2) ([2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kingston University, Law School, Kingston Hill, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK

    Raymond H. Youngs

Authors
  1. Raymond H. Youngs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond H. Youngs .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Law Unit, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Verica Trstenjak

  2. Faculty of Law & University College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Petra Weingerl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Youngs, R.H. (2016). An Uneasy Relationship: The Influence of National and European Fundamental Rights in English Private Law. In: Trstenjak, V., Weingerl, P. (eds) The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25337-4_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25337-4_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25335-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25337-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation