- Cited — URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited 2023-07-05
“… support of what seems, certainly at first blush, a rather odd result. She relied on what the House of Lords said in Wilson v First County Trust Limited (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 A.C. 816 about the need to construe any statute in a way that was compatible with Convention Rights. She referred to Lord Hope’s speech at [98] and L…”
- Cited — T & Ors. v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-01-17
“…roportionate, notwithstanding the discriminatory impact it has on a group of people. This is contrary to established authority (see Wilson v First County Trust [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816 HL at [62]-[63], “Wilson No 2”).…”
- Followed — Stephen Hoey & Ors. v Commissioners for HMRC 2022-05-13
“… retrospectivity, it is common ground that the underlying rationale for the presumption against retrospectivity is fairness. In Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816 at [19], Lord Nicholls approved the following statement of the principle made by Staughton LJ in Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunn…”
- Cited — Aviva Insurance Limited v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2022-01-14
“…In Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No.2) [2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 AC 816 at paragraph 111 Lord Hope emphasised the need for the court to look at the legislation itself to determine the legislative aim of Parliament.…”
- Explained — Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) 2021-02-18
“…rliamentary materials which explain the background to the Government’s decision and in particular its policy objectives: Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 A 66.”…”
- Explained — Delve & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions 2020-09-15
“…ilchrist had done here. That does not explain why Parliament chose to enact the legislation and, as Lord Hope pointed out in Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816 at [166], it is no part of the court’s function to assess whether Parliament had sufficient reason to enact legislation. We do not accept that…”
- Cited — Delve & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions 2020-09-15
“…t that different state pension ages for men and women were maintained over many years. As Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said in Wilson v First County Trust (No. 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, at [192], individuals and businesses run the risk that Parliament may change the law governing their affairs; no one has a vested right to th…”
- Followed — McConnell & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales 2020-04-29
“…orm when assessing the compatibility of primary legislation with Convention rights was set out by the House of Lords in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No. 2) [2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 AC 816, in particular at paras. 61-67 (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead). The following propositions are apparent from that passage. First, the court’s ta…”