Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and Others – [2005] EWCA Civ 1191
Citation: Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and Others – [2005] EWCA Civ 1191
Rule of thumb: What is called the ‘Aunt Sally’ trick in legal advocacy? Or in Regulations generally? If you are going to make a ‘pretty unreasonable’ point, make another ‘totally unreasonable’ point at the same time, so that the ‘pretty unreasonable’ point looks normal by comparison.
Judgment:
‘Of course even Otton LJ's view does not mean that the power to make subordinate legislation is virtually unlimited. Mr Howell played that old advocate's trick of putting up an Aunt Sally so as to knock it down in the hope that more would be knocked down than just Aunt Sally. He invited us to reject the view that just because a Directive contains a specific obligation, a statutory instrument can be made dealing with anything related to that obligation, that related to the obligation only in a most general sense is enough. That I am happy to accept. For instance, a Minister could not by statutory instrument change the whole law of contract just because a Directive related to some corner of contract law. But so to conclude does not advance the debate far. To say only a tenuous relationship with the subject-matter of a Directive will not do (with which I agree), does not identify what will do’. At 78, Lord Justice Jacob
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.