Jump to content

Talk:R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This article seems to imply that the effect of the Thoburn case is that "constitutional" laws may only be expressly repealed. The comment in Thoburn suggesting this was merely obiter dicta and is not binding - someone should change the article accordingly. I would, but I don't know enough about editing rules and guidelines etc, an experienced wiki person should sort it out!

Unknown 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

[edit]

It is my understanding that the ECJ did not rule that the House of Lords should strike down the offending legislation, but that instead they should 'disapply' it, ie. ignore its application. This is an important distinction.

Unknown 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free money

[edit]

"Other parties disagree that this would be difficult and the reasons for not leaving are due to the blatant self-interest that the politicians involved display. This is the so-called EU 'gravy train' whereby polticians get money for anything they wish from free lunches to free travel for their families.[citation needed]"

I rather doubt that politicians really can "get money for anything they wish", and the fact there's no citation for this makes me even more suspicious. The issue of polticians' self interest as an impediment to leaving the EU already been raised in the preceeding sentence, so this bit really should be excised IMO.

Rocko b 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ollieollieollie claims to have tried to remove the above line; edit appears to have restored it, however. Have undone edit, returning page to previous text; ie missing the un sourced, inapproporiately phrased text re the "eu gravy train".

Major re-write required

[edit]

For such an important case in English and European law which changed the relationship between the EU and its Member States, this article needs to be seriously improved to provide more information about the actual case itself, the ratio, the ECJ's judgment and excerpts from informed academic commentary. It is also worth bearing in mind that there were five Factortame judgments. Ravenseft 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade

[edit]

There are two references to someone called 'Wade' who is not identified. I am about to replace them with 'citation needed' tags. If citations by a notable authority can be produced, please replace them. --Red King (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mislabelled title requires change

[edit]

the current title "R (Factortame) v. S of S" makes no sense and is incorrect. if you trouble to look at the actual cases, it is always '“R v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and others" . i suggest "R v Secretary ex parte Factortame" as condensation. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on which citation style you follow. The old way for citing judicial reviews was "R. (Prosecutor) v. Respondent". In the UK they then changed this to "R. v. Respondent ex parte Applicant", and then back again to "R. (Applicant) v. Respondent". They all say the same thing. Given that multiple cases are being discussed I think Factortame litigation would be the preferred title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your alternative. At present it looks too much like HM was a party _with_ Factortame, and that may mislead the reader. I was certainly puzzled, and am still amazed that the Secretary could bring suit against his employer over a piece of legislation which (as I understand) he himself had introduced to the Commons. On second thought, perhaps we ought to leave it as is, so that the reader can be roundly puzzled, and drawn to closer study of the law. Thanks for your time, sir. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's arcane but in the UK judicial reviews are brought in the name of the king. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I think it would be better to leave it where it is. As far as I can see it was one case with several written decisions, not several cases. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

[edit]

"Furthermore, the case does not, on a strict reading, constitute a breach of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was not a purposeful and direct conflict with EC law, but was instead an attempt to give effect to the fishing quotas required under EC law. Therefore, the courts were not striking down a domestic Act of Parliament, but were instead attempting to interpret legislation in a manner compatible with the Treaty obligations that arise under the European Communities Act 1972 (as proposed by Lord Diplock in the case of Garland v British Rail Engineering). It remains to be seen how the courts would respond to an Act of Parliament intentionally contradicting EC law. However, in the case of Macarthys v Smith, Lord Denning suggested that, should such an event occur, the courts would be obliged to obey the domestic law over the European."

As far as I know, the MSA was indeed an attempt to contravene EC law - public law textbooks and other sources specify that the UK was warned during the MSA Parliamentary proceedings by the Commission. Loveland has also noted that the law was passed by a minoritarian, xenophobic govt. Please, please, please, someone get on this! As a crucial part of EU/UK Public Law, these misrepresentations are EXTREMELY abhorrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.108.200 (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

r

[edit]

what does "R" stand for in the title? this needs to be included.68.150.86.232 (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Case citation#United Kingdom, the "R" denotes cases where the state (thus King/Queen) is a party. Coinmanj (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport&oldid=1209674850"