Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]

English Contract Law

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyres Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
‘Tyre’ by Kiku Poch

After litigation is bought against a third party the enforcement of a contract extending beyond reasonable bounds proves the undoing of a commercial tyre distributor when the rules of English contract law move to narrow the scope of claim and protect those party to sub-contracts.

In 1911 the appellant tyre manufacturer set about establishing written agency distributorship agreements with a number of commercial outlets in order to retain control over the sale value of its key products, wherein sch.2 and sch.5 of those contracts required all participating agencies to agree that:

“(2) We will not sell or offer any Dunlop motor tyres, covers or tubes to any private customers or to any co-operative society at prices below those mentioned in the said price list…nor give to any such customer or society any…discounts or advantages reducing the same.

(5) We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd, the sum of 5l for each and any tyre, cover or tube sold or offered in breach of this agreement, as and by way of liquidated images and not as penalty, but without prejudice to any other rights or remedies you or the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd may have hereunder.”

In exchange the agencies were granted a 10% discount and some instances annual rebates for high value orders, and so on this occasion the respondents had purchased a Dunlop tyre from an agency, who as consideration were prevented from selling Dunlop products to any other firms or individuals for less than the standard list price, while afforded a discretionary right to sell Dunlop products to other trade outlets at a maximum of 10% discount on the proviso that those purchasing had pre-signed a prohibitive contract similar to the one held by the agencies.

With this in mind the respondents later sold a particular Dunlop tyre to a private customer at a seven and a half percent discount, and yet when ordering the tyre from the agency they were informed that no discount could be offered to the buyer without the completion of a signed price maintenance agreement (an act later executed by the respondents). 

Having learned of this the appellants sought an injunction and sued the respondents for breach of contract on grounds that the agency were acting under their principle control, therefore by selling the tyre to a prohibited party they were liable for damages as expressed in sch. 5 above. 

In the first instance the judge awarded in favour of the appellants before granting the injunction as requested, while challenged in the Court of Appeal the respondents argued that the contract between the agency and the appellants excluded the right to enforce it upon a third party on grounds that no consideration had been given by the appellants when the price maintenance agreement was drafted between the respondents and the agency. 

Having lost the appeal the appellants pressed the issue before the House of Lords, who unanimously upheld the previous judgment on grounds that lack of consideration at the point the agreement was made precluded the appellants any claim of right under English common law, while reminding the parties that:

“[O]nly a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]

English Constitutional Law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]
‘Yarra Bank (Trade Union) Meeting’ by Patrick Harford

Executive powers and national security form the footing of this call for judicial review under the argument that changes to civil servant working conditions were executed without due consideration for those affected.

In a relationship with a chequered history it was decided by the Minister of the Civil Service (aka Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher) that since the previous strike actions of key staff within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had proven destructive, it was necessary to execute instructions to ban any affiliation by government employees with trade unions of any sort, and while this unprecedented move was carried out under legitimate sovereign powers, it directly conflicted with the principle that governmental decisions were first offered to consultation with the trade unions as an inherent duty to exercise fairness when carrying out executive function.

On this occasion the instructions were carried out under art.4 of the Civil Service Order 1982 but orally released within the House of Commons, and so greeted with natural anger and confusion, while the aim of this sudden prohibition was simply to circumvent open discussion in lieu of avoiding future strike actions now considered a significant threat to national security.

When heard at court level the presiding judge had held that the instructions were issued on grounds demonstrating no effort toward consultation and were therefore invalid in their application, while under challenge the Court of Appeal had held that the executive action itself was not exempt from judicial review because the order came from prerogative powers rather than statute, and that despite the latter source forming the premise for most reviews, the Court saw no distinction between a self-executed order and that of an act of Parliament.

In response the defence used by the Minister for the Civil Service relied upon operational safety measures, and how under those circumstances it was felt that the same people responsible for the previous compromises were right to be excluded from using consultation as leverage to create further damage, while it was further argued that any discussions between trade unions and Government would have amounted to the same outcome regardless of protests by those affected. 

This position was further supported by the fact that s.(a) and (a)(ii) of art.4 of the Order in Council 1982 allowed the Minister to create regulations controlling the conduct of those employed, therefore denial of trade union membership lawfully fell within those remits.

When the Court upheld the Minister’s actions, the appellants pressed the issue, whereupon the House of Lords sought to establish whether (i) judicial review was necessary, and (ii) whether the respondents had acted in manner that precluded fairness and a duty to follow precedent, after which it was held that while the avoidance of discussion demonstrated a clear breach of that duty, it was not the responsibility of the courts to determine what constituted a threat to national security and that the executive itself was empowered to prove or disprove itself as to its own actions, all of which led the House to conclude that:

“[W]here a question as to the interest of national security arises in judicial proceedings the court has to act on evidence.”

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004]

English Constitutional Law

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004]
‘Freedom’ by Abed Alem

The unlawful detention of individuals suspected of terrorist activity is central to this collective appeal amidst the unprecedented attacks of September 11th 2001 in New York, when in light of this historic event the United Kingdom took swift measures to derogate from their commitment to the Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Following a number of arrests, there were nine men of various nationalities detained under s.23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In order to facilitate such action the Home Secretary had worked closely with Parliament to both execute and enact Part 4 of the 2001 Act, which provided powers to issue freezing orders upon those suspected of threats to the stability or security of the country. To further support this measure, statutory instrument SI/2001/3644 (also known as the ‘Derogation Order’) was drafted as to allow for specific actions peripheral to the Human Rights Act 1998 where those suspected were subject to the terms of the 2001 Act.

Prior to this amendment it was only possible under para.2(2) of sch.3 of the Immigration Act 1971 for the Secretary of State to detain non-British nationals while awaiting deportation, and such action was only deemed justifiable for a reasonable period of time, as this allowed the United Kingdom to remain fully compliant with its obligations to the ECHR, in particular art.5(1) (Right to liberty and security). However, in Chahal v United Kingdom Parliament attempted to circumvent art.3 of the Convention (No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) in order to excessively detain and deport a Sikh separatist on grounds of an affiliation to terrorism, but were overruled by the EU Commission on democratic principles.

In this instance the appellants were challenging the derogation from ECHR principles for the purposes of detainment and deportation of foreign nationals, on grounds that the United Kingdom was not in a state of public emergency as required by art.15(1) of the Convention, and that further clarification of that article had been found in The Greek Case, where the Commission had explained that:

“Such a public emergency may then be seen to have, in particular, the following characteristics: (1) It must be actual or imminent. (2) Its e­ffects must involve the whole nation. (3) The continuance of the organised life of the community must be threatened. (4) The crisis or danger must be exceptional, in that the normal measures or restrictions, permitted by the Convention for the maintenance of public safety, health and order, are plainly inadequate.”

It was thus contended that none of the above elements were visible when derogating from the ECHR and applying the terms of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to both arrest and detain the appellants, and further noted that recent ministerial statements indicated that the United Kingdom was under no immediate threat, and so while alert to international attacks they had no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Having considered the voluminous evidence provided by both sides, and the decision taken by the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords reemphasised the course of action taken by the Secretary of State, who had countered that failure to adopt a pre-emptive state of emergency was tantamount to a breach of national security. And so while no immediate evidence suggested imminent danger to the general public and economic infrastructure, proportionate measures taken, now far outweighed the argument for adherence to Convention policy, despite overwhelming disagreement by the European Commission. 

There was also discussion around unlawful use of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) as provided for in s.24 of the 2001 Act, who were granted exclusive jurisdiction over the rights and appeals of detainees, as opposed to referral to the courts, which was another obvious attempt to circumvent due process under principles of national security.

With knowledge of deviant use of policy and a flagrant appreciation of the English judicial system the House unanimously allowed the appeals, while quashing the Derogation Order and declaring s.23 of the Ant-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 incompatible with arts.5 and 14 of the ECHR on grounds of discrimination through the use of immigration status, before reminding the court that:

“[A] non-national who faces the prospect of torture or inhuman treatment if returned to his own country, and who cannot be deported to any third country and is not charged with any crime, may not under article 5(1)(f) of the Convention and Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 be detained here even if judged to be a threat to national security.”

Foster v British Gas [1986]

European Law

Foster v British Gas [1986]
‘British Gas Works on the River Spree’ by Adolf Meckel von Hemsbach

In the same way that Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority [No.1] determined the rights of female employees under the protections of Directive 76/207/EEC, this class action matter extended its scope to allow damages for dismissal under the guise of retirement.

When six former workers were subjected to forced retirement at the age of sixty, they sought remedy through the industrial tribunals on grounds that the respondent had violated its obligation to observe the Directive’s principles of equality, and thus they were entitled to compensatory payment in lieu of their significant financial losses.

In the first instance the appellants claims were dismissed on the strength that since 1986 the British Gas Corporation had become a private entity, and therefore it fell beyond the scope of the Directive, while a subsequent appeal to both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal proved futile.

Undeterred, the appellants presented their case to the House of Lords, who sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice under art.177 EC, whereupon two questions asked: 

1. Whether the manifestation of British Gas Plc (at the time of the claim) was within the terms of the meaning “state”? 

2. And if so, what form the award might take? 

Having evaluated the facts, the House held that when Directive 76/207/EEC first came into force it was ignored by the United Kingdom and subsequently failed to become part of domestic legislation within the provided timeframe, therefore the respondents were state owned and thereby subject to the terms of the Gas Act 1972, while the state’s failure to transpose the terms of the Directive left it open to the Community law doctrine that ‘no state can profit from its own failure’.

This resulted in a judgment for the appellants on grounds that the terms of the Directive were fully applicable to the respondents as they qualified as an emanation of the state and were subject to the effects provided under it, while the Court reminded the parties that:

“[T]he State may not benefit from its default in respect of anything that lies within the sphere of responsibility which by its own free choice it has taken upon itself, irrespective of the person through whom that responsibility is exercised.”

CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982]

European Law

CILFIT
‘Lamb of God’ by Francisco de Zurburán

Member State compliance with Community law is brought into question after an Italian national court sought to address their Ministry for Health’s contention that domestic laws precluded a right to claim, and that no regulatory terms could provide a different outcome.

When a claim was made by a number of textile firms against the excessive taxation of imported wool, they relied upon the powers conferred by Regulation 827/68/EEC and not the discriminatory rules set down under the national powers of Law No.30, which had forced companies to pay levies ten times the amount intended prior to a later amendment under Law No.1239.

In the first instance the claimants were denied a right to recover in the Tribunal di Roma (District Court) on grounds that the adoption of Regulation 827/68/EEC had excluded wool, while the Corte d’Appello (Court of Appeal) also rejected the claim before they appealed to the Court of Cassation, whereupon the Ministry of Health cross-appealed in an attempt to persuade the Court to decide the outcome without seeking a preliminary ruling under art.177 EC.

Here the Court interpreted that by virtue of the fact that the Ministry of Health argued against a consultation with the European Court of Justice, there must be a degree of uncertainty as to the effect of Regulation 827/68/EEC, and that while national legislation failed to provide an immediate remedy such a duty nonetheless existed. 

Thus in accordance with its perceived obligations the Court of Cassation asked:

1. Whether under such circumstances para.3 of art.177 EC required the national courts (or courts of first instance) to seek a preliminary ruling where uncertainty or doubt as to the interpretation of a Regulation existed?

Having evaluated the intentions and possible variances of art.177 EC it was agreed by the European Court of Justice that while certain discretions were provided for when adopting and applying the terms of Community law, the obligation to seek a preliminary ruling was one designed to establish clarity. 

This translated that even if the questions arose from claimants, government or the courts themselves, it was important that the courts looked at the complexity of the doubt and sought (where relevant) the assistance of the European Court of Justice in order that the effect of the Regulation or Directive was properly established, while the Court further reminded the parties that:

A uniform interpretation of Community law by the Court is objectively in the public interest, which may not be subordinated to the existence or otherwise of agreement between the national courts in the previous stages of an action or to the assent or dissent of the parties.”

Courage Ltd v Crehan [2001]

European Law

Courage Ltd v Crehan
‘In the Brewery in Munich, 1892’ by Philip de Laszlo

Under English law the courts refuse to endorse a claim for damages when the claimant was a party to a contract borne from illegal principles, while this is echoed in equity under the maxim ‘he who comes to equity must come with clean hands’, and so reminds those considering such arrangements that they do so without the aid of the judiciary.

However in this matter the claimant was a party to a publican agreement drawn up through the merger of a large brewery and owners of a number of public houses across the United Kingdom, while as part of this agreement the claimant brewery contracted to supply beer to existing tenants (publicans) under a non-negotiable tariff purportedly designed to protect the interests and profits of those purchasing, and yet after the tenant had somehow amassed a debt of around £15,000 the brewery sought recovery through the courts.

Having previously discovered that the brewery was supplying the same beers for lower prices to non-contracted third parties, it was then counter-claimed that the agreement demonstrated a breach of art.85 EC (formerly art.81 EC) therefore damages were owed and no payment for previously provided beer was due.

After the case reached the Court of Appeal it was decided that due to the conflict between national and Community law a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice under art.234 EC needed to confirm: 

1. Whether art.85 EC allowed a party to a prohibited agreement to claim damages?

2. Whether a party can claim when relying upon their own adherence to the agreement?

3. Whether a national law preventing recovery under prohibited agreements remained consistent with Community law?

4. Where deemed incompatible which situations allowed national law to apply?

Having evaluated the aims of national law and the claim’s validity it was agreed that while those contracting in the distortion of fair competition are themselves contributors to their own demise, there are certain scenarios demonstrating an inequality of bargaining power and thus grounds for reconsideration. 

Here the Court noted how in this instance the tenant was subjected to the terms of the agreement with little to no room for bargain, and so while it was agreed that the terms of art.85 EC precluded claims of that nature, it did so on the proviso that the claimant was proportionately liable for any market distortion, while it was also clear that where no such arrangement existed, the effects of art.85 EC (which provided for direct effect and application between individuals) were sufficient enough to allow for a claim despite  any objections raised under English law, while reminding the parties that:

“[C]ommunity law precludes a rule of national law which prevents a party subject to a clause in a contract which infringes Article 81 EC from recovering damages for the loss suffered by it on the sole ground that it is a party to that contract.”

Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority (No.1) [1986]

European Law

Marshall v Southampton
‘Abstract Women 010’ by Corporate Art Task Force

Dismissal upon grounds of sexual discrimination and the direct effect of Community law Directives in issues of state employment were the key ingredients to this matter, when a former employee of the South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority was subjected to unexpected termination of her employment, despite intimations that her post was secure beyond policy requirements.

Having joined the department in 1974 the applicant had enjoyed working as a Senior Dietician until she reached the contracted retirement age (five years earlier than her male colleagues) at which point it was agreed that she could continue working although no specific end date was discussed, however the applicant was dismissed without notice two years later upon grounds that she was a woman and so considered beyond retirement age and surplus to requirements.

Immediately after her departure the applicant sought to challenge the decision through the enforcement of Council Directive 76/207/EEC, which supports the ‘principle of equal treatment’ inasmuch as art.1(1), (2), 2(1) and 5 collectively confer Member State obligations to apply and maintain the equal treatment of men and women with regard to employment, promotion, training, working conditions, social security, dismissal and the prohibition of any discrimination (whether directly or indirectly), while these rights applied to all manner of employment arrangements.

In the first instance the industrial tribunal denied her claim under the s.6(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which provided that discrimination by an employer was exempt under retirement conditions, and that the pensionable age of women under s.27(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 supported the age of retirement through the  availability of state pensions as of sixty years of age. 

Upon dismissal of her appeal she challenged the findings again, whereupon the Court of Appeal was forced to raise two questions with a view to a preliminary ruling under art.177 EC, namely: 

1. Whether the appellant’s dismissal after reaching retirement age on the basis that she was a woman constituted sexual discrimination under Directive 76/207?

2. That if so agreed, whether the terms of the Directive allowed for direct effect given the conflict between domestic legislation and Community law?

And so having referred the case to the European Court of Justice it was held that while the Health Authority relied upon the narrowness of meaning when determining the powers of legislation, they failed to appreciate that all Member States are obliged to adopt the principles of a Directive within a designated period (which on this occasion had long since elapsed), and that when doing so must adjust or if necessary, remove the applicable statute so as to give full effect to the meaning of the Directive. 

It was further noted how the Health Authority had sought to avoid the duties called for under Community law while expanding the terms of the Social Security Act 1975 beyond their meaning when deciding that pensionable age was a prerequisite to retirement, which amounted to nothing more than overt sexual discrimination against which the appellant had a valid and lawful right of claim.

Looking next to the effect of Directive 76/207/EEC it was argued by the Health Authority and the United Kingdom that the terms within were prescribed for the benefit or use of the Member State and not the individual, and that the terms of an non-implemented Directive excluded contracts between private parties. 

It was further argued that the State was entitled to be seen as a private employer for the purposes of the case, thus it was contended that the appellant was denied the right to bring action against the State and so a review of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was required before the continuation of proceedings. 

In stark contrast the Court upheld the appeal on grounds that a failure to adopt the Directive had rendered the Health Authority liable for penalty and thereby accountable at law as an emanation of the State, therefore a citizen could claim such rights within the domestic court in lieu of their non-implementation, before reminding the parties that:

“[W]herever the provisions of a Directive appear, as far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may be relied upon by an individual against the State where that State fails to implement the Directive in national law by the end of the period prescribed or where it fails to implement the Directive correctly.”