The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Public International Law 0

Brexit and the lobster factory

Alison Macdonald explains the relevance of an 1892 Privy Council decision to this week's Supreme Court hearing

By Legal Support Service · On December 8, 2016


This week’s Supreme Court hearing on the Article 50 judicial review is being comprehensively covered elsewhere, including a live blog by the UKSC Blog. The judgments are likely to raise some interesting issues of international law, along with fundamental issues of domestic constitutional law.

The British press have also been following the case keenly, and earlier this week had cause to make a satirical reference to an old Privy Council decision. Commenting on the styles of advocacy before the Court, The Guardian observed that Lord Pannick QC cited:

some 1892 precedent about raiding a lobster preservation factory in Newfoundland. No one thought to ask him whether it was entirely germane to the proceedings because it was all rather fun and no one dares to interrupt the master in full flow.

The case in question is Walker v Baird [1892] AC 491, an 1892 decision of the Privy Council. The UK and France had entered into a treaty about the lobster fisheries on the coast of Newfoundland, to avoid a serious conflict which was brewing on the subject. The treaty provided, among other things, that no new lobster factory should be established in a particular area after 1 July 1889, without the consent of the Commanders of the British and French naval stations.

Mr Baird, the captain of a British patrol boat, was given the job of enforcing this agreement. He seized the lobster factory of Mr Walker on the basis that it had been established after that date, without the Commanders’ consent. Mr Walker sued for trespass. The Privy Council gave short shrift to the argument of the Attorney-General, on Mr Baird’s behalf, that “the Court was not competent to inquire into a matter involving the construction of treaties and other acts of State” (an argument still frequently advanced on behalf of the Government), describing this as “wholly untenable”.

The Attorney-General argued on Mr Baird’s behalf that, given that the Crown has the power to make treaties, “there must of necessity also reside in the Crown the power of compelling its subjects to obey the provisions of a treaty”. The Privy Council ducked the issue, holding that whether interference with private rights can be authorised other than by Parliament was a “grave question upon which their Lordships do not find it necessary to express an opinion.” They decided the case narrowly on the facts, finding for Mr Walker, the aggrieved owner of the lobster factory.

Given the vast range of rights which are now conferred on UK residents by EU law, the question of whether interference with private rights can be authorised other than by Parliament is not one which the Supreme Court will be able to avoid as easily in 2016 as the Privy Council did in 1892.

Legal Support Service

Legal Support Service

The Legal Support Service provide research and paralegal support to Matrix members – whether by finding legal information (cases, legislation, articles, reports etc), producing bundles of authorities for court, or carrying out more substantial research. They also collate daily current awareness bulletins, covering Matrix’s major areas of practice, manage our intranet and extranets and administer the freelance research panel.




You Might Also Like

  • Human Rights

    Why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship breaches international law

  • Public International Law

    Review of the year: top ten international law cases of 2018

  • Public International Law

    Do Ministers have to comply with international law? Court of Appeal looks at legal challenge

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy