Coppard v Customs and Excise

Coppard v Customs and Excise

Judge Seymour was not a usurper; he neither knew nor ought to have known he lacked authority. The de facto doctrine validates his authority as a judge-in-fact, making his judgment valid at common law. This status satisfies the requirement of a tribunal established by law under Article 6 ECHR.

Parties
Appellant: Edgar John Coppard; Respondent: HM Customs and Excise; Intervener: Lord Chancellor’s Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
De Facto Judges, Tribunal Established by Law, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Authority, Human Rights Act Compliance
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Human Rights De Facto Judges Tribunal Established by Law Article 6 ECHR Judicial Authority Human Rights Act Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edgar John Coppard

Appellant

HM Customs and Excise

Respondent

Lord Chancellor’s Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge who was not formally authorised to sit as a High Court judge was a judge-in-fact and whether his judgment was valid
  2. 2 Whether such a judge constituted a 'tribunal established by law' under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Judge Seymour was not a usurper; he neither knew nor ought to have known he lacked authority. The de facto doctrine validates his authority as a judge-in-fact, making his judgment valid at common law. This status satisfies the requirement of a tribunal established by law under Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Time for appealing enlarged to the date of the appellant’s notice
  • Appeal dismissed; judgment of Judge Seymour stands