Matrix Churchill and Public Interest Immunity: A Postscript
| Published date | 01 May 1995 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02020.x |
| Author | G. Ganz |
| Date | 01 May 1995 |
May
19951
Matrix Churchill and Public Interest Immunity:
A
Postscript
Conclusion
Matharu
v
Matharu
was always going to be a difficult case. On the one hand, there
was what Dillon LJ described as the plaintiffs ‘repugnant’ behaviour in trying to
render homeless his widowed daughter-in-law and five grandchildren. On the
other hand, there was a defendant who was now seeking to remain in the property
indefinitely when it was at least questionable how far she had originally believed
she would have this right and had acted to her detriment in reliance on it. There
was no suggestion that the plaintiff had ever told the defendant that the property
belonged to Raghbir and, although Roch LJ cites references by Raghbir to ‘his
house,’ Dillon LJ simply refers to the defendant having ‘supposed or assumed that
the house belonged to Raghbir.’31 Even if the defendant had understood the
property to be Raghbir’s, did she really imagine that she would be able to remain
there indefinitely? As for payments in respect of the mortgage and improvements
being detrimental reliance, it should be noted that Raghbir was prepared to make
them although he knew full well that the property belonged to the plaintiff.
Of general significance is the way the majority of the Court of Appeal, once they
were persuaded (rightly or wrongly) that there had been the requisite belief and
detrimental reliance, not only applied the narrow approach but failed even to
acknowledge the existence of the broad approach. As a result, a series of cases
must now be expected where the courts attempt, in Oliver J’s words, to force facts
into ‘a Procrustean bed constructed from some unalterable criteria’32
so
that a
party can successfully raise a proprietary estoppel. Although there will be cases
where, as in
Matharu
v
Matharu,
the outcome is going to be the same regardless of
which approach
is
taken, this will not always be
so.
Reverting to the narrow
approach in all cases will surely limit the opportunity both for justice being done in
the individual case and for the continuing development of an extremely important
type of estoppel.
Matrix Churchill
and Public Interest Immunity:
A
Postscript
G.
Ganz”
It is nice to be vindicated by the House of Lords, even if only in
obiter dicta
and
without acknowledgment.‘ In
R
v
Chief Constable
of
the West Midlands Police,
ex parte Wiley,*
the majority of the House of Lords agreed that there was no duty
on Ministers to sign public interest immunity certificates, contrary to the assertion
of the Attorney-General at the time of the
Matrix Churchill
case. His statement was
bolstered by a quotation from Bingham
LJ
in
Makanjuola
v
Commissioner
of
Police
of
the Metropoli~,~
a case which has now been overruled in
exparte Wiley.
The views of their Lordshipos in
ex parte Wiley
are the more welcome because
31
32 [I9821
QB
133, 154F.
*Faculty
of
Law, University
of
Southampton.
(1994) 68
P
&
CR
93, 99-
100
and
95
respectively.
1
2 [1994] 3
WLR
433.
3
Ganz,
‘Matrix
Churchill
and Public Interest Immunity’
(1993) 56
MLR
564.
[I9921
3
All
ER
617, 623.
0
The Modem
Law
Review Limited
1995
417
To continue reading
Request your trial