- Cited — Argentum Exploration Limited v The Silver 2022-10-11
“…[2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264. The alternative remedy of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 is a remedy of last resort (…”
- Cited — Griffiths v Tickle & Ors 2021-12-10
“…the provision completely, or violate a cardinal principle of the legislation), but the simple test is contained in the words of s 3 themselves: Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264 [28] (Lord Bingham). (4) It is constitutionally vital to adhere to this limiting principle, as it demarcates the boundary between interpretati…”
- Cited — London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Ins Assoc Ltd v Kingdom of Spain 2021-11-04
“…iament, in accordance with the principles articulated in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza[2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557 and Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264. The alternative remedy of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 is a remedy of last resort (Ghaidan at [46], Sheldrake at [28]).…”
- Cited — WB v W District Council 2018-04-26
“… interpretation prevent it from doing so. This possibility is recognised in the citation given by Lewison LJ from the speech of Lord Bingham in Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43; [2005] 1 AC 264. It is also in accordance with the general scheme of the HRA, namely that it should not diminish Parliamentary sovereignty: see in particular …”
- Applied — WB v W District Council 2018-04-26
“…ed (indeed, bound) to apply the interpretative obligation contained in section 3. That obligation is a strong one. As Lord Bingham explained in Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43; [2005] 1 AC 264 at [28]:…”
- Considered — Euro Wines (C&C) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs 2018-01-25
“…Janosevic was one of the cases considered by the House of Lords in Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43; [2005] 1 AC 264, in a combined appeal which considered presumptions against a defendant in two very different contexts, control of a motor vehicle having cons…”