DOCSLIB.ORG

Gouriet V Union of Post Office Workers and Others

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gouriet V Union of Post Office Workers and Others I lit MM 11 OO ladies. However, for the reasons which have been given, we have conic (n the con. I? Attorney-General made the following statement: ‘Having considered all the circum- OO sion that this tribunal is not the proper place to investigate the validity ol the c\ j!_t j I nances including the public interest. I have come to ihe conclusion that in rclaiinn tion study. We, certainly, no more than an industrial tribunal may, arc uoi gum* !•> m ihis application I should not give my consent.' Thereupon the plaint iff issued a writ venture on any evaluation study ourselves. in his own name, claiming an injunction restraining ihe union Irom soliciting or For these reasons, in our view, this appeal must succeed to the limited extent iJ-i: endeavouring to procure any person wilfully to detain or delay any postal packet in it is to be remitted for further consideration on the basis that in the first place ifm -.1 ilie course of transmission between (England and Wales and ihe Republic of South a case which falls to be considered under s 1(5) where there is prima facie in runrrvr Africa. At 3.50 p m he applied ex parte 10 a High Court judge in chambers lor an a valid and proper evaluation study. If it is to be called into question, it can onlv N f 4 interim injunction in the same terms. The judge dismissed the application, holding done within a very limited area, and we are quite confident that an industri.il tnhuml tlut since the Attorney-General had refused his consent to a relator action, the plaintifl is quite capable of deciding for itself how far it can go in examining the validity of th» himself had no locus standi to bring an action. The plaintiff appealed and on the next evaluation study. Consequently this case must be remitted to a fresh tribunal 10 day, Saturday, the Court of Appeal granted an interim injunction until the following consider it along the lines that we have indicated. Tuesday and gave leave to the plaintiff to add the Attorney-General as a defendant. The union complied with the injunction and the boycott did not take effect. At the Appeal allowed. ( hearing on the Tuesday the Attorney-General appeared and contended that the court had no jurisdiction to question his decision to refuse his consent to a relator action and Solicitors: Anderson ir Co, Nottingham (for the female employees). ih.it, since the plaintiff had no parricular interest in preventing the postal boycott other than his interest as a member of the public, he was not entitled to bring the Salim H J Merali Psq lUrri'ic:. action in his own name after the Attorney-General had refused his consent. Held - (1) Despite the refusal of the Attorney-General to give his consent to relator " proceedings, the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction in ihe plaintiff's action for the following reasons— Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers and (i) (per Lord Denning MR) The discretion of the Attorney-General was absolute others onlv 10 ihe extent that the courts would not enquire into it where he had exercise J it In granting his consent. Where, however, he li.nl refused his consent his decision could COUKT OP APPEAL, C1VU. DIVISION be overriden, indirectly, by the court 10 ihe extent that il he refused leave in a proper LORD DENNING MR. LAWTON AND OUMItOD I.JJ * * use the plaintiff could himself apply to the. court for a declaration or. where appro­ I 5t h , l 8 t h , 19tll, 2 0 tll, 2 ISr, 2 7 th JANUARY I977 priate, for an injunction, joining the Aiionicy-Ceneral as a delcndam. In particular, where the Attorney-General refused to give his consent to an action seeking the Attorney-General - Relator action - Refusal of consent to relator action - Right of maulvr enforcement of the criminal law, any citizen could come to the court and ask that the public to sue in own name - Claim for declaration or injunction - Enforcement ofcrtimn.il law be enforced. In those circumstances the court could not only grant a declaration - Interlocutory injunction - Public interest - lijfect o f refusal of Attorney-General's consent w hut also an injunction, whether interlocutory or final, to prevent the commission ol a relator action - Right of member o f public to bring action in own name - PlainiiJ) /i,iun< r.' criminal offence (see p 715 e, p 716 a and b and p 718 <1 to h, post); dictum of Lord particular interest above that o f other members of public - Action to restrain postal »vrkcn Denning MR in Attorney-General (on the relation of Me Winner) v Independent Broadcasting union from instructing members to interfere with postal services in breach of criminal l.m - Authority [1973] 1 All PR at 698, 699 and Thorson v /Utoruev-Cener.il of Canaria (1973) 4.1 Attorney-General refusing consent to relator action - Right o f member of public suing m DLR (3d) 1 applied; dicta of Ormrod J in Montgomery v Montgomery [1964] 2 All PR at name for declaratory judgment - Right to interim injunction - Supreme Court of liuluature >.t and Lord Denning MR in Thorne v British Broadcasting Corpn [1967] 2 All PR at 1226 (Consolidation) Act 192j , s 45(1). disapproved. S 0 (ii) (per Lawton and Ormrod LJJ) The decision of the Attorney-General to refuse On the evening of Thursday, 13th January 1977, the plaintiff'saw a news bulletin on his consent to an action to enforce the law was not subject to review by the court. television in which it was reported that the executive council of the Union ol I'dm Where his consent was refused however it did not follow that the pluim iti'was thereby Office Workers had resolved that day to call 011 its members to impose a boycott on barred from seeking any relief. Where there was no discernible reason why 1 lircatciicd all postal communications between Britain and South Africa. On the following day breaches of 1 lie criminal law should not be restrained, but ihe Attorney-General had The Times newspaper contained a report of the resolution, indicating that ihe action refused his consent to relator proceedings to restrain those breaches, it was open to .1 proposed to be taken by the union was in response to a call for ‘international solularn \ A member of the public who might be inconvenienced or suller material loss by reason from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to its member unions 1 <> of the breaches to bring proceedings in his own name lor a declaratory judgment 1h.1t protest against the South African government s policy o f‘apartheid'. The boy ton «i> the threatened actions would in fact constitute breaches ol the criminal law. In such to come into effect on the following Sunday, 16th January. At 12.45 p m 011 1 hr proceedings the court had jurisdiction, under s 45(0 ° of the Supreme Court of Judica­ Friday the plaintiff applied to the Attorney-General for his consent to act as plainiill ture (Consolidation) Act 1925, to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the in a relator action for an injuction against the union on the ground that the actiom of . threatened actions (sec p 721 j, p 723 d to It, p 724 c. p 725 d to g. p 726 b to / and h, the union's members in interfering with postal communications and the action of 1 lie / ! p 730/to Ii and p 731 /t o h, post); Attorney-General v Dyson [1912] t Ch 158 and .Inoriit’v- union in soliciting or endeavouring to procure such interference would conunmr (leiicriil i' W estu^^ter Comity Council [1924] All PR Rep 162 applied; dicta of Viscount criminal offences under ss 5«“ and 6Hh of the Post O a ^ V c t 1953. Ai i j i p m 1 hr c' Section 4s(t)^^ar as niaicTi.il, provides: 'The I ligli Court may gram ... an injunction ... <1 Section 5B, so far as material, is set 0111 at p 700 f, post by an interlocutory order in all cases in which it appears 10 the Court 10 be jtisi or f> Scciiou 68 is sci our at p 700 h, post convenient so to do.' Maugham and Lord Wright in Loudon Passenger Transport Board v Moscrop [1041) 1 A P. Attorney-General v Westminster City Council [1924] 2 Ch 416, [1924] All ER Rep 162, 93 ER at 103, *04, 107 explained; Thorne v British Broadcasting Corpn [1967] 2 All HR n it I LJCh 573.131 LT 802.88 JP 145. 22 LGR 506, CA, 16 Digest (Repl) 537. 3776. distinguished. Attorney-General (on the relation of McWhirwr) v Independent linuulcasting Authority (2) Since the plaintiff, in common with other members of the public, had an intm it [1973] 1 All ER 689. [1974] QU 629. [197J] 2 WLR 34-1. C.A, Digest (Com Vol D) 209, in the availability of the postal and telephone services and a real interest in en*unrj ilSja. that those facilities were not interfered with by the illegal acts of the defendant*, tlx flciijiiiiiiii v Storr (1874) LR 9 CP 400, [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 2000, 43 LJCP 162, 30 LT court had exercised its jurisdiction properly in granting his application for .111 inter- I(i2, 36(1) Digest (Reissue) 481, 601. locutory injunction. The plaintiff would be granted leave to amend his pleading to 4 IVivii/wt Corpn v To^er [1902] 2 Ch 182, 71 LJCh 754, 86 LT 612; iijjil [1903] ■ Ch 759.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exclusivity of Postal Services Within Jersey: Termination of Agreement Between the States of Jersey and the United Kingdom
    STATES OF JERSEY r EXCLUSIVITY OF POSTAL SERVICES WITHIN JERSEY: TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATES OF JERSEY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM Lodged au Greffe on 14th February 2006 by the Minister for Economic Development STATES GREFFE PROPOSITION THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion having regard to the proposed commencement of the provisions of the Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004, on 1st April 2006, to approve the signature by the Minister for Economic Development of the draft agreement annexed hereto, to terminate the agreement made between the Postmaster General and the Greffier of the States of 15th August 1969. MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT This draft Agreement will have the effect of ending the existing Agreement, made on 15th August 1969 (“the 1969 Agreement”), by virtue of which the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 3 of the Post Office Act 1953 to provide postal services was surrendered, in respect of the Bailiwick of Jersey, and the administration of those services was to be provided, instead, by the States of Jersey. The Agreement, made between the Postmaster General (on behalf of the U.K. Government) and the Greffier of the States can be found in Schedule 1 to the Postal Services (Jersey) Order 1969 (“the 1969 Order”). The continued existence of the 1969 Agreement and the 1969 Order is, of course, inconsistent with the provisions of the Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004[1]. The 1969 Order will be revoked by a further Order in Council, in due course, but the 1969 Agreement has an independent existence and revocation of the Order will not automatically terminate it, hence the need for the draft Agreement, which the States are now asked to consider.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C
    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (c. 51)i, ii An Act to make new provision with respect to public records and the Public Record Office, and for connected purposes. [23rd July 1958] General responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for public records. 1. - (1) The direction of the Public Record Office shall be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall be generally responsible for the execution of this Act and shall supervise the care and preservation of public records. (2) There shall be an Advisory Council on Public Records to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office. The Master of the Rolls shall be chairman of the said Council and the remaining members of the Council shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on such terms as he may specify. [(2A) The matters on which the Advisory Council on Public Records may advise the Lord Chancellor include matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.iii] (3) The Lord Chancellor shall in every year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the work of the Public Record Office, which shall include any report made to him by the Advisory Council on Public Records.
    [Show full text]
  • Premium Savings Bonds Regulations 1972
    PREMIUM SAVINGS BONDS REGULATIONS 1972 JERSEY REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS 06.198 APPENDIX 3 Jersey R & O 5680 Premium Savings Bonds Regulations 1972 Jersey R & O 5680 National Debt Act 1958. National Loans Act 1968. Post Office Act 1969. ____________ PREMIUM SAVINGS BONDS REGULATIONS 1972. ____________ (Registered on the 30th day of June, 1972). ____________ ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS. PRELIMINARY. 1. Citation and commencement. 2. Interpretation. ISSUE AND PURCHASE OF BONDS. 3. Issue, purchase and registration of bonds. 4. Persons entitled to purchase and hold bonds. 5. Maximum holding of bonds. 6. Minimum purchase of bonds. PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF BONDS. 7. Applications for payment. 8. Warrants. 9. Payment in case of persons under 16 years of age. 10. Payment in case of mentally disordered persons. 11. Payment in case of bankrupts. PAYMENT IN CASE OF DEATH. 12. Payment under grant of representation. 13. Payment without a grant of representation. 14. Law applicable on holder’s death. MISCELLANEOUS. 15. Unclaimed moneys due in respect of bonds. 16. Persons under disability. 17. Payments into National Savings Bank. 18. Loss of bonds, etc. 19. Forfeiture of bonds. 20. Persons unable to write. 21. Rectification of mistakes. 22. Settlement of disputes. 23. Notice of trust not receivable by Director of Savings. 24. Exemption from stamp duty. 25. Fees for birth, death and marriage certificates. 26. Indemnity of Treasury, Director of Savings and officers. 27. Savings of rights of third parties. 28. Form of documents. Revised Edition – 31 August 2004 Page - 3 Chapter 06.198 4 Jersey R & O 5680 Premium Savings Bonds Regulations 1972 29.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Crown May Do
    WHAT THE CROWN MAY DO 1. It is now established, at least at the level of the Court of Appeal (so that Court has recently stated)1, that, absent some prohibition, a Government minister may do anything which any individual may do. The purpose of this paper is to explain why this rule is misconceived and why it, and the conception of the “prerogative” which it necessarily assumes, should be rejected as a matter of constitutional law. 2. The suggested rule raises two substantive issues of constitutional law: (i) who ought to decide in what new activities the executive may engage, in what circumstances and under what conditions; and (ii) what is the scope for abuse that such a rule may create and should it be left without legal control. 3. As Sir William Wade once pointed out (in a passage subsequently approved by the Appellate Committee2), “The powers of public authorities are...essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion.” If a minister may do anything that an individual may do, he may pursue any purpose which an individual may do when engaged in such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Office Act 1969 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 13 April 2021
    Changes to legislation: Post Office Act 1969 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 13 April 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Post Office Act 1969 CHAPTER 48 POST OFFICE ACT 1969 PART I 1 . PART II THE MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND HIS FUNCTIONS 2 The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. 3 Transfer to the Minister of the Postmaster General’s functions with respect to wireless telegraphy, and provisions consequential thereon. 4 Transfer to the Minister of the Postmaster General’s functions under section 6 of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act 1949. 5 Transfer to the Minister of the Postmaster General’s power to make orders under the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962. PART III THE NEW AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC BUSINESS The Post Office 6 The Post Office. Powers and Duties of the Post Office 7 Powers of the Post Office. 8 Furnishing of overseas aid by the Post Office. 9 . 10 Power to promote and oppose Bills, &c. ii Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48) Document Generated: 2021-04-13 Changes to legislation: Post Office Act 1969 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 13 April 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Office Act 1969, Part III
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Post Office Act 1969, Part III. (See end of Document for details) Post Office Act 1969 1969 CHAPTER 48 PART III THE NEW AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC BUSINESS Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Pt. III (ss. 6–88) amended by Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51, SIF 81:1), s. 57(7), Sch. 13 para. 13(c) The Post Office F16 The Post Office. Textual Amendments F1 S. 6 repealed (1.5.2007) by Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26), s. 130(1), Sch. 9; S.I. 2007/1181, art. 2, Sch. Powers and Duties of the Post Office F27 . Textual Amendments F2 S. 7 repealed (26.3.2001) by 2000 c. 26, s. 127(6), Sch. 9; S.I. 2001/1148, art. 2, Sch. (subject to arts. 3-42 of the said S.I.) 2 Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48) Part III – The new Authority for the Conduct of postal and telegraphic Business Document Generated: 2021-04-15 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Post Office Act 1969, Part III. (See end of Document for details) F38 . Textual Amendments F3 S. 8 repealed (26.3.2001) by 2000 c. 26, s. 127(6), Sch. 9; S.I. 2001/1148, art. 2, Sch. (subject to arts. 3-42 of the said S.I.) 9 . .F4 Textual Amendments F4 Ss. 9, 11(7) repealed by British Telecommunications Act 1981 (c. 38), Sch. 6 Pt. II F510 . Textual Amendments F5 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunication Services (Jersey) Order 1972
    TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES (JERSEY) ORDER 1972 JERSEY REVISED EDITION OF THE LAWS 06.270 APPENDIX 3 Jersey Order in Council 29/1972 Telecommunication Services (Jersey) Order 1972 Jersey Order in Council 29/1972 TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES (JERSEY) ORDER 1972. ____________ (Registered on the 15th day of December, 1972). ____________ At the Court at Buckingham Palace. ____________ 28th November, 1972. ____________ Present The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council. ____________ WHEREAS an agreement has been concluded between the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the States of Jersey providing for the surrender by the Post Office, as regards the Bailiwick of Jersey, of the privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 24 of the Post Office Act 19691 and the administration in that Bailiwick by, or under the authority of, the States instead of the Post Office of such telecommunication services as are being administered there by the Post Office: Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by section 87(1) of the Post Office Act 1969,2 is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: - 1. This Order may be cited as the Telecommunication Services (Jersey) Order 1972 and shall come into operation on 1st January 1973. 2. This Order applies only to the Bailiwick of Jersey. 3.-(1) The Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply for the purpose of the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the purpose of the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and section 38 of that Act (effect of repeals) shall apply as if this Order were an Act of Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Office Act 1969 (C
    Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48) 1 SCHEDULE 4 – Adaptations of Enactments and Orders in Council consequential on the Assumption by the new Authority for the Conduct of postal and telegraphic Business of Functions exercised and performed before the appointed Day by the Postmaster General Document Generated: 2021-06-11 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Post Office Act 1969, Part II. (See end of Document for details) SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 4 ADAPTATIONS OF ENACTMENTS AND ORDERS IN COUNCIL CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ASSUMPTION BY THE NEW AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPHIC BUSINESS OF FUNCTIONS EXERCISED AND PERFORMED BEFORE THE APPOINTED DAY BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL PART II ADAPTATIONS OF PUBLIC GENERAL ENACTMENTS Adaptations of Enactments relating to the Post F12 . Textual Amendments F1 Sch. 4 para. 2 repealed (26.3.2001) by S.I. 2001/1149, art. 3(2), Sch. 2 (with arts. 1(3), 4(11)) F23 . Textual Amendments F2 Sch. 4 para. 3 repealed (26.3.2001) by S.I. 2001/1149, art. 3(2), Sch. 2 (with arts. 1(3), 4(11)) Adaptations of Enactments relating to Telegraphs 4 . F3 Textual Amendments F3 Sch. 4 para. 4 repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 (c. 12), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. I 5, 6. F4 Textual Amendments F4 Sch. 4 paras. 5, 6, 8, 10, 16–19 repealed by Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12, SIF 96), s. 109, Sch. 7 Pt. I 7 . F5 2 Post Office Act 1969 (c. 48) SCHEDULE 4 – Adaptations of Enactments and Orders in Council consequential on the Assumption by the new Authority for the Conduct of postal and telegraphic Business of Functions exercised and performed before the appointed Day by the Postmaster General Document Generated: 2021-06-11 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Post Office Act 1969, Part II.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Office Act 1993
    c i e AT 20 of 1993 POST OFFICE ACT 1993 Post Office Act 1993 Index c i e POST OFFICE ACT 1993 Index Section Page PART 1 – THE ISLE OF MAN POST OFFICE 7 Constitution of the Post Office 7 1 Constitution of the Post Office ...................................................................................... 7 Functions of the Post Office 8 2 General duty of the Post Office ..................................................................................... 8 3 Directions by Department of Economic Development.............................................. 8 4 Powers of the Post Office ............................................................................................... 9 4A Amendment of powers of Post Office........................................................................ 11 Financial provisions 11 5 Financial duty of Post Office ....................................................................................... 11 6 Directions as to reserves and accounts ...................................................................... 12 7 Directions to transfer sums to General Revenue ...................................................... 12 8 Restrictions on capital expenditure ............................................................................ 12 9 Borrowing powers ........................................................................................................ 13 PART 2 – POSTAL SERVICES 13 Postal monopoly 13 10 Exclusive privilege with respect to conveyance of letters......................................
    [Show full text]
  • ———————— Number 28 of 2007 ———————— STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT 2007 ———————— ARRAN
    Click here for Explanatory Memorandum ———————— Number 28 of 2007 ———————— STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT 2007 ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 1 [No. 28.]Statute Law Revision Act 2007. [2007.] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 [2007.]Statute Law Revision Act 2007. [No. 28.] Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, sess. 2, c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Office Act 1993
    c i e AT 20 of 1993 POST OFFICE ACT 1993 Post Office Act 1993 Index c i e POST OFFICE ACT 1993 Index Section Page PART 1 – THE ISLE OF MAN POST OFFICE 7 Constitution of the Post Office 7 1 Constitution of the Post Office ...................................................................................... 7 Functions of the Post Office 8 2 General duty of the Post Office ..................................................................................... 8 3 Directions by Department of Economic Development.............................................. 8 4 Powers of the Post Office ............................................................................................... 9 Financial provisions 11 5 Financial duty of Post Office ....................................................................................... 11 6 Directions as to reserves and accounts ...................................................................... 11 7 Directions to transfer sums to General Revenue ...................................................... 12 8 Restrictions on capital expenditure ............................................................................ 12 9 Borrowing powers ........................................................................................................ 12 PART 2 – POSTAL SERVICES 13 Postal monopoly 13 10 Exclusive privilege with respect to conveyance of letters....................................... 13 11 General classes of acts not infringing privilege .......................................................
    [Show full text]