2018 Oct Q2 The General Note on Part III of PIL(MP)A1995 which came into force in
1996, states as follows: “It is generally accepted that the rule in Phillips
v. Eyre has been modified by the House of Lords in Boys v. Chaplin …
Despite the uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the exception
provided for by Boys v. Chaplin, Lord Wilberforce’s judgment has been
regarded as authoritative and has been followed in subsequent cases
…”
(a) Explain the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870).
(b) Discuss if, on a proper interpretation of Boys v. Chaplin, the House
of Lords in Boys modified the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870). If so,
how?
(c) Discuss the effects of Boys v. Chaplin on English law with particular
reference to more recent cases such as Harding v. Wealands
(2006).
1996, states as follows: “It is generally accepted that the rule in Phillips
v. Eyre has been modified by the House of Lords in Boys v. Chaplin …
Despite the uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the exception
provided for by Boys v. Chaplin, Lord Wilberforce’s judgment has been
regarded as authoritative and has been followed in subsequent cases
…”
(a) Explain the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870).
(b) Discuss if, on a proper interpretation of Boys v. Chaplin, the House
of Lords in Boys modified the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870). If so,
how?
(c) Discuss the effects of Boys v. Chaplin on English law with particular
reference to more recent cases such as Harding v. Wealands
(2006).
