Case Report: O'Reilly vs. Mackman, 1982, London
O'Reilly and Others Appellants v. Mackman and Others Respondents
[1982] 3 W.L.R. 1096
House of Lords: HL
Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of
Harwich and Lord Brightman
1982 Oct. 11, 12, 13; Nov. 25
Lord Denning M.R., Ackner and O'Connor L.JJ.
1982 April 6, 7, 20; June 30
Peter Pain J.
1982 Feb. 25; March 5
[Conjoined Appeals]
High Court--Procedure--Declaratory relief--Prisoners' claims against prison visitors--Proceedings by writ and originating summons--Whether judicial review only remedy--Whether claims abuse of process of court--Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54), s. 31 (1) (2)--R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 1 (1) (2)
Judicial Review--Certiorari--Prison's board of visitors--Prisoners' claim against prison visitors--Whether judicial review only remedy--Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 31 (1) (2)--R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 1 (1) (2)
The four plaintiffs, prisoners in Hull Prison, were charged with disciplinary offences before the board of visitors to the prison. In the case of each plaintiff the board held an inquiry found the charges proved and imposed penalties. Three of the plaintiffs brought actions by writ in the Queen's Bench *238 Division of the High Court against the board alleging that it had acted in breach of the Prison Rules and the rules of natural justice and claiming a declaration that the board's findings against them and the penalties awarded were void and of no effect. The fourth plaintiff started proceedings by originating summons in the Chancery Division against the Home Office and the board of visitors alleging bias by a member of the board and claiming a declaration that the board's adjudication was void for want of natural justice. In all four cases the defendants applied to strike out the proceedings. Peter Pain J. dismissed the applications. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and struck out the proceedings on the ground that they were an abuse of the process of the court and
[1982] 3 W.L.R. 1096
House of Lords: HL
Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of
Harwich and Lord Brightman
1982 Oct. 11, 12, 13; Nov. 25
Lord Denning M.R., Ackner and O'Connor L.JJ.
1982 April 6, 7, 20; June 30
Peter Pain J.
1982 Feb. 25; March 5
[Conjoined Appeals]
High Court--Procedure--Declaratory relief--Prisoners' claims against prison visitors--Proceedings by writ and originating summons--Whether judicial review only remedy--Whether claims abuse of process of court--Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54), s. 31 (1) (2)--R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 1 (1) (2)
Judicial Review--Certiorari--Prison's board of visitors--Prisoners' claim against prison visitors--Whether judicial review only remedy--Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 31 (1) (2)--R.S.C., Ord. 53, r. 1 (1) (2)
The four plaintiffs, prisoners in Hull Prison, were charged with disciplinary offences before the board of visitors to the prison. In the case of each plaintiff the board held an inquiry found the charges proved and imposed penalties. Three of the plaintiffs brought actions by writ in the Queen's Bench *238 Division of the High Court against the board alleging that it had acted in breach of the Prison Rules and the rules of natural justice and claiming a declaration that the board's findings against them and the penalties awarded were void and of no effect. The fourth plaintiff started proceedings by originating summons in the Chancery Division against the Home Office and the board of visitors alleging bias by a member of the board and claiming a declaration that the board's adjudication was void for want of natural justice. In all four cases the defendants applied to strike out the proceedings. Peter Pain J. dismissed the applications. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and struck out the proceedings on the ground that they were an abuse of the process of the court and