Computation of Time in UK Law

In my judgment, his decision on the discretion issue was part of the ratio decidendi, for two reasons. First, as I have said, the case had proceeded before the judge on the basis of a concession that the primary limitation period had been extended so as to expire during the period of the company's dissolution.

The limitation regime exists mainly to serve the public interest in the prohibition of stale claims.

The starting position was therefore that, as the Judge acknowledged, the Company appeared to have been put into dissolution by its liquidator after a decision that a claim could not longer be pursued and where, for the reasons which I have given, the burden must lie firmly on the Company or its assignee to demonstrate why it would be just to enable that abandoned claim to be pursued with the benefit of a limitation direction.

A requirement that the applicant demonstrate an interest in the matter complained of will not however operate satisfactorily if it is applied in the same way in all contexts. In some contexts, it is appropriate to require an applicant for judicial review to demonstrate that he has a particular interest in the matter complained of: the type of interest which is relevant, and therefore required in order to have standing, will depend upon the particular context.

In their Lordships' view when Jamaica acceded to the American Convention and to the International Covenant and allowed individual petitions the petitioner became entitled under the protection of the law provision in section 13 to complete the human rights petition procedure and to obtain the reports of the human rights bodies for the Jamaican Privy Council to consider before it dealt with the application for mercy and to the staying of the execution until those reports had been received and considered.

It seems to us that the fact that the Government have participated in this procedure - they furnished the information requested by the I.A.C.H.R. after the Commission's receipt of Fisher's application, they responded to their initial comments and recommendations and they presented a statement of their position at the Friendly Settlement Meeting in Washington - has provided Fisher with a legitimate expectation that, if the I.A.C.H.R. were to recommend against the carrying out of the death sentence, their views would be considered before the final decision is taken as to whether or not he is to be executed.

When a judge has pronounced judgment he retains control over the case until the order giving effect to his judgment is formally completed. This control must be used in accordance with his discretion exercised judicially and not capriciously. The learned Judge in these two cases exercised his discretion judicially in recalling his original Orders, and there is in our opinion no ground for disturbing the Orders finally made.