[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Render v Howard [2001] EWCA Civ 754 (16 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/754.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 754

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE WALTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 16th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: This is an application for permission to appeal made by Mrs Render from a decision of His Honour Judge Walton at the Newcastle County Court.Mrs Render has issued a claim form against the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, at the address of the Prime Minister's office, Parliament House in Canberra. Her claim says this:

"My claim refers to an Agreement reached between PM Holt (including subsequent PM's) and myself concerning my personal Compensation and Guarantee of personal security of the Austr. Government. I am claiming for the PM's outstanding part of the Agreement:

1. My family's Compensation money which was

claimed by Austr. Gov. Officials and made Government property.

2. Compensation money for my personal injuries including a A$2 Mill. Trust Fund for my twins.

3. Permanent Residency Status in Australia....

4. That a court order be made to PM Howard to supply me with the 1967 Supreme Court File and a copy of the Agreements both held by the Prime Minister's Department."

2. Mrs Render has informed me that she was deported from Australia in 1971. She now wishes to pursue the claim which is set out in the claim form.
3. The procedural position is that Judge Walton in the Newcastle County Court called the case in on 5th January for a directions hearing, and that hearing was held in Mrs Render's presence on 29th January. At that hearing she applied for judgment in default against Mr Howard. The learned judge dismissed her application for judgment in default and decided that the case was not justiciable (to use the appropriate legal word) because it was a claim against a Sovereign state as represented by the Prime Minister.
4. As far as his dismissal of the application for judgment in default is concerned, that was plainly correct because the claim form had not even been served and so there could be no question of any judgment in default being obtained. Mrs Render's chief complaint, however, is that the claim ought not to have been struck out. The directions hearing proceeded, in a sense, as if leave to serve the claim form had been granted, and was therefore a live claim. The question whether the claim form could be served was in effect subsumed into the question of whether the claim should be struck out as non-justiciable. So the question is whether there is any prospect of Mrs Render appealing successfully against the decision of the learned judge that the claim is not justiciable.
5. I have considered the papers with care and listened to what Mrs Render has to say, but I fear that I must conclude that the claim is not justiciable because it is a claim against Australia in its capacity as a Sovereign state. It, therefore, falls foul of the principle of English law that the acts of a Sovereign state cannot be adjudicated upon in an English Court and, therefore, the learned circuit judge was entirely correct to have struck the claim out. Mrs Render complains that is very unfair and contrary to her human rights because if she has been deported from Australia, she asks in submission, how can she pursue the claim in Australia where she is told that is the only place that she can pursue it. In my judgment, there is no argument that it is contrary to human rights. The principles of state immunity are left quite unchallenged by the European Convention of Human Rights and, indeed, the principles of state immunity are considerably older than the Convention of Human Rights.
6. If Mrs Render had a good claim, she would be able to instruct lawyers in Australia to pursue it for her. The difficulty is that she is unable to persuade anybody that it is a good claim. But whether a good claim or not, it is not justiciable in the English Courts, and therefore I must refuse permission.
(Application for permission to appeal refused)