European Court of Human Rights defers to traditional UK common law

16 December 2011 by

OBG Ltd et al v. United Kingdom, 29 November 2011

We have become quite used to the Strasbourg Court having a serious go at bits of our statutory law, whether it be prisoners’ rights, anti-terrorist legislation or housing law. A lot of this statute enables the state to do things to private citizens which may or may not offend the Convention. But what is rather rarer in Strasbourg is the case where an applicant challenges judge-made law or common law, and does so where the dispute is between two private parties. Perhaps the best known example is the MGN/Naomi Campbell case in which privacy and costs issues got an intense scrutiny from the Strasbourg Court.

OBG sounds much less glamorous and more obscure, but is nonetheless interesting. The human rights of companies which have been injured by the wrongful exercise of administrative receivership powers have not been minutely examined in the case law, to say the least. But if this case sounds dry, and likely to hoist me by my own petard (should lawyers get named and shamed for being boring?), bear with me. Because it is actually quite a sad story of people being dealt an unjust result – for which neither domestic  nor Strasbourg courts felt able to fashion a suitable remedy.

The applicant, OBG, was, by all accounts, a successful construction company in the North West of England. It derived most of its contracts from North West Water. But then it fell out with NWW. This meant it could not pay its sub-contractors, Centriline, to the tune of over £1m. Centriline was advised, wrongly, by its solicitors that they could appoint receivers over OBG’s assets to pay its debt. In 1992, the receivers directed OBG’s workforce to shut up shop. The receivers realised OBG’s assets, raising just over £1m, including a rather limited deal with NWW in respect of its contractual claims. This  repaid Centriline’s debts – but nothing more. OBG still owed £4m to others.

OBG then sued Centriline’s solicitors, Centriline itself having gone into liquidation. Centriline’s solicitors then put their hands up – yes, we were negligent. But the upshot of a long and tortuous route  up the court system was that OBG did not recover full damages for what they lost because they had wrongly been put into adminstrative receivership. In 2007  (not fast moving litigation, this, given that the receivers had intervened in 1992), the House of Lords dismissed OBG’s appeal. The judge at first instance had given OBG damages for the losses incurred because a better deal should have done with NWW. The higher courts disagreed. The grounds are technical. OBG were suing in tort. It said that the receivers had “converted” OBG’s property, in ordinary-speak, wrongly taken it. The higher courts said that the rules about conversion (in this case enshrined in statute, albeit deriving from aged common law principles) did not allow recovery for interference with intangible assets. The curious anomaly was that if you took a cheque, you could be liable – the cheque was a real thing, a piece of paper. But if you took the debt underlying the cheque, you were not liable -it was intangible. Odd that, given that the piece of paper which is the cheque is of rather less interest to most of us than the underlying money which will come our way when we cash the cheque. Ah well, such is the oddity of the the common law.

I  am afraid that the other claim brought by OBG is even more abstruse. OBG said that the receivers had wrongly interfered with the contractual relations between OBG and NWW. The higher courts said, yes, they had, but that this was not enough unless the receivers had had equally some intention to cause loss or damage to OBG. Given that the receivers had acted in good faith (albeit on dud advice), there was no claim.

The interest of the case is Strasbourg’s take on it. No prizes for guessing that OBG said that their Article 1 Protocol 1 claims in respect of their possessions had been interfered with. But remember that the defendants were not public authorities. So the claim had to be that UK law determining the case between these private parties was not Convention-compliant because it did not sufficiently protect OBG’s A1P1’s rights to its own property.

This was a bridge too far for Strasbourg. It declared the application inadmissible. It accepted that the value of the contracts was a posession for A1P1 purposes. OBG said that the UK was in breach of its negative obligations (not to offend A1P1), and of its positive obligations (to make sure that A1P1 was not offended). In both instances, the Strasbourg Court quailed at deciding that the highly complex rules of domestic tort law offended A1P1. In each case, OBG was arguing that there was a duty on the courts (and hence on the UK) to develop the anomalous rules of tort so that entities in its position could claim the losses which in fact had flowed from the wrongful interposition of the receivers. But the domestic courts and Strasbourg said no – there are underlying good reasons why the line is drawn as it is, even though OBG fell foul of it, and lost over £1m thereby.  Strasbourg expressed itself in rather formulaic terms. Limiting the liabilities of third parties such as receivers to OBG was in the general interest.

The core of its conclusion is contained in paragraph 92:

In such a complex area of private law, it is not the role of this Court to second guess the House of Lords’ conclusion, or  indeed to weigh the competing arguments for and against such a development of the common law.

Hmm. The Strasbourg Court feels no such compunction in putting its oar in firmly in other complex areas. But perhaps the key is in the fact that this was a private law dispute, with one private party suing another, and the Court, somewhat unfamiliar with the refinements of UK company law, felt (unlike prisoners or alleged terrorists) insecure in weighing in – despite the apparent injustice of it. So discretion was the better part of valour.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

3 comments


  1. Stephen says:

    Isn’t the major point here that the Court was asked to rule in relation to two private entities? The ECHR is about the relationship between the State and private entities, including companies it seems.

  2. An interesting case – thanks. Perhaps this shows Strasbourg’s relative lack of interventionism in A1P1 cases compared to cases involving other rights, and perhaps to some extent anxiety on the court’s part not to repeat its experience in the Osman/Z v UK cases, where the ECtHR had to row back on its initial view of negligence law, once it understood it.

  3. Stephen says:

    Yes, I get the gist of this even I am not a lawyer.

    It seems odd to me that a company, although a legal person, should have human rights. Does the application of the ECHR to companies stem from the ECHR itself or has the UK legislature, via the HRA , decided that the Convention should apply?

    In either case, I see logical problems with applying Convention rights to companies.For example, can Article 8 apply when it is not obvious that a company can have a family or private life?

    If a right to life is enshrined in the ECHR then logically it should not be permissible to have forced winding up procedures in law because such procedures deprive a company of its existence.

    Doesn’t the application of the Convention give companies the right to vote in general and local elections?

    Hayek, the Austrian political economist, believed that private enterprise provides the best mechanism to keep the State in check. Is the granting of human rights to companies a mechanism to give effect to Hayek’s proposition? His proposition arose from observing how the Nazi State subordinated private firms to the Nazi programme (including the production and supply of Zyklon B gas by IG Farben)?

    I am possibly parading a high degree of ignorance with these questions but I wonder if anyone else has the answers.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: