R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairsex p World Development Movement 1995

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 153629
Jump to navigation Jump to search

R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairsex p World Development Movement [1994]


At that time, the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) was under Secretary of State and Foreign Affairs and the Commonwealth, whose main purpose was to encourage UK exports to developing countries ("aid by trade"). During this time, it is suspected that there is a link between the provision of services and the achievement of foreign policy objectives or British companies that win export orders.

A scandal erupted over UK funding for a hydroelectric dam on the Pergau River in Malaysia, near the Thai border. Construction began in 1991 with funding from the UK's foreign aid budget. At one time, the Malaysian government bought about $ 1 billion worth of arms in the UK. Proposed co-ordination of arms sales to aid has been controversial in the UK government since March 1994. In November 1994, the World Development Movement called for a review of justice.

The British federation wanted to build a hydroelectric power station in Pergau River in Malaysia. Overseas Development Management advised on the project on the basis that it was not economic and could be a misuse of the overseas aid program. However, the consortium received funding from the Secretary of State and after that, a financial agreement was signed between the UK and Malaysia. The applicant sought assurance from the Secretary of State that the project would be stopped for funding. However, the Secretary-General declined to give such a guarantee.


o Is it possible for new costs to be legalized?

o Above all, in R v the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, did the applicants stand to present procedures?


The High Court of England and Wales held that the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, had acted ultra vires (outside of his power, and therefore unlawfully) by allocating £234 million towards the funding of the dam, on the grounds that legislation only empowered him to allocate funds to economically sound projects.

The Sector Court granted the request. The Court held that the stand was not the first and should be considered in the context of the case. Here, they found that there was an appropriate stand for:

  1. First, the seriousness of the allegations (£ 200 million of public funds was at stake);
  2. Second, the validity of the plaintiff's case;
  3. Third, the absence of another opponent (because no one was particularly affected- all taxpayers are equally and implicitly affected);
  4. Lastly, the expert and experienced character of the applicant, which enabled him to bring an informed challenge to the court.


The court refused the

application, finding that the European Union (Amendment) Act, 1993, wrote that the process of ratification of the protocol by the European Parliament. Lloyd LJ also noted that " there is a theory that only Parliament can change the law. The right to contract is a part of the king's prerogative." In addition, the content of the Treaty does not affect the contents of one of the UK 's laws, and, therefore, it will not affect the legislative sovereignty of


Another notable point here is that the willingness of the Court to review the case, there will be a flexible and fluid understanding of the lex loci" in relation to the judicial system, according to which a party who wishes to bring a claim, it shall be strong enough to the extent of his connection to the case.


[1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, [1995] 1 All E.R. 611, [1994] 11 WLUK 148, [1995] C.O.D. 211, (1995) 145 N.L.J. 51, Times, December 27, 1994, Independent, January 11, 1995