Chagos Islanders v Attorney Generall & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 997 (22 July 2004)

Chagos Islanders v Attorney Generall & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 997 (22 July 2004)

The claims are barred for those who signed renunciation forms, as these are binding settlements. The state is not directly liable in tort for the acts alleged; no actionable torts of misfeasance, exile, or deceit are made out on the facts. Even if arguable, all claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as any disability or unconscionability ceased by 1983, and there was no deliberate concealment. The Mauritius Constitution argument is arguable but does not affect the outcome.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 997
Parties
Applicants/claimants: Chagos Islanders; Respondent/defendant: The Attorney General; Respondent/defendant: Her Majesty's British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
State Liability, Misfeasance in Public Office, Trespass to the Person, Deceit, Limitation of Actions, Renunciation of Claims, Compensation for Displacement, Jurisdiction and Application of Constitutional Rights
Public Law Tort Law Constitutional Law Human Rights State Liability Misfeasance in Public Office Trespass to the Person Deceit +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chagos Islanders

Applicants/claimants

The Attorney General

Respondent/defendant

Her Majesty's British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants who signed renunciation forms are barred from bringing claims
  2. 2 Whether the state is liable in tort for enforced removal and exclusion of Chagos Islanders
  3. 3 Whether claims in misfeasance in public office, unlawful exile, and deceit are sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are barred for those who signed renunciation forms, as these are binding settlements. The state is not directly liable in tort for the acts alleged; no actionable torts of misfeasance, exile, or deceit are made out on the facts. Even if arguable, all claims are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as any disability or unconscionability ceased by 1983, and there was no deliberate concealment. The Mauritius Constitution argument is arguable but does not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No further claims may be brought by those who signed renunciation forms