Phillips v Eyre
Encyclopedia
Phillips v Eyre, LR 6 QB 1 is a famous English decision on the conflict of laws in tort
. The Court developed a two prong test for determining whether a tort occurring outside of the court's jurisdiction can be actionable.
had been the governor of Jamaica
during the Morant Bay rebellion
. He had ordered the arrest and murder of many citizens. At the end of his term as governor he had passed an Act prohibiting any legal actions being taken against him for what he had done while governor.
When he returned to England several Jamaicans sued him in tort in the Courts of England.
.
Due to the Act that Eyre passed just before leaving, the act was found to be justifiable by the law of Jamaica and thus could not be actionable in England.
powers de jure
. There is a presumption in English law against retrospective effect and Willes J, the judge in Eyre's case noted that "The court will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication that such was the intention of the legislature". It was held in that case that Eyre's intention was clear.
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
. The Court developed a two prong test for determining whether a tort occurring outside of the court's jurisdiction can be actionable.
Facts
Edward John EyreEdward John Eyre
Edward John Eyre was an English land explorer of the Australian continent, colonial administrator, and a controversial Governor of Jamaica....
had been the governor of Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica is an island nation of the Greater Antilles, in length, up to in width and 10,990 square kilometres in area. It is situated in the Caribbean Sea, about south of Cuba, and west of Hispaniola, the island harbouring the nation-states Haiti and the Dominican Republic...
during the Morant Bay rebellion
Morant Bay rebellion
The Morant Bay rebellion began on October 11, 1865, when Paul Bogle led 200 to 300 black men and women into the town of Morant Bay, parish of St. Thomas in the East, Jamaica. The rebellion and its aftermath were a major turning point in Jamaica's history, and also generated a significant political...
. He had ordered the arrest and murder of many citizens. At the end of his term as governor he had passed an Act prohibiting any legal actions being taken against him for what he had done while governor.
When he returned to England several Jamaicans sued him in tort in the Courts of England.
Judgment
The Court held that Eyre could not be sued for his conduct in Jamaica. In order to bring an action the claimant must satisfy two requirements. First, the alleged conduct must "be of such a character that it would have been actionable if it had been committed" in the local jurisdiction. Second, "the act must not have been justifiable by the law of the place where it was done." That is, it must be non-justifiable at the lex loci actusLex loci actus
lex loci actus law of the place where the act occurred that gave rise to the legal claim. This is often confused with lex loci delicti commissi which is where the tort is committed...
.
Due to the Act that Eyre passed just before leaving, the act was found to be justifiable by the law of Jamaica and thus could not be actionable in England.
Significance
One of the especially contentious parts of Eyre's conduct was the fact that the law he enacted was meant to cover all acts he had already done, making de factoDe facto
De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure when referring to matters of law, governance, or...
powers de jure
De jure
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact".De jure = 'Legally', De facto = 'In fact'....
. There is a presumption in English law against retrospective effect and Willes J, the judge in Eyre's case noted that "The court will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication that such was the intention of the legislature". It was held in that case that Eyre's intention was clear.