 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(d)
The difficulties
In the passage cited above, Lord Woolf's approach was that inherent jurisdiction to
restrain the institution of vexatious proceedings exists "absent the intervention of a
statute cutting down the jurisdiction". However, the authorities have taken a contrary
position. Declaring that access to the court is a constitutional right, they have held that
express statutory authority is required if it is to be restricted on any grounds.
In In re Bernard Boaler [1915] 1 KB 21 at 36, Scrutton J put the need for clear
statutory authority to intervene, even when faced with cases of abuse, in the following
terms :-
"One of the valuable rights of every subject of the King is to appeal to the King in his Courts
if he alleges that a civil wrong has been done to him, or if he alleges that a wrong punishable
criminally has been done to him, or has been committed by another subject of the King. This
right is sometimes abused and it is, of course, quite competent to Parliament to deprive any
subject of the King of it either absolutely or in part. But the language of any such statute
should be jealously watched by the Courts, and should not be extended beyond its least
onerous meaning unless clear words are used to justify such extension."
Viscount Simonds in Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local
Government [1960] AC 260, put it concisely :-
"It is a principle not by any means to be whittled down that the subject's recourse to Her
Majesty's courts for the determination of his rights is not to be excluded except by clear
words." (at 286)
In Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation
Ltd [1981] AC 909 at 977, in the context of justifying the court's inherent power to
dismiss a pending action for want of prosecution, Lord Diplock stressed the
constitutional nature of the right of access to the court at common law as follows :-
"Every civilised system of government requires that the state should make available to all its
citizens a means for the just and peaceful settlement of disputes between them as to their
respective legal rights. The means provided are courts of justice to which every citizen has a
constitutional right of access in the role of plaintiff to obtain the remedy to which he claims
to be entitled in consequence of an alleged breach of his legal or equitable rights by some
other citizen, the defendant."
|
 |
|