Phillips v Eyre, (1870) 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.
Contents |
Edward John Eyre 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.
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 actus.
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.
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 facto powers de jure. There is a presumption in English law against retrospective effect and Willes J, the judge in Eyre's case[1] 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.