§ 139. Mr. Byers
asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of a Court of Appeal in the case of Royston versus Cavey; and whether, in view of the fact that courts will no longer entertain actions against nominated defendants, he will take immediate action to introduce legislation to relieve the citizen of this disability.171W
§ 140. Mr. Rees-Williams
asked the Attorney-General what steps will be taken by His Majesty's Government to alleviate the distress caused in the recently decided case of Royston versus Cavey by the inability of the plaintiff to sue the Crown in tort.
§ 142. Mr. Weitzman
asked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the strong opinion expressed by the court in the recent case of Royston v. Cavey and the recent announcement that the Government would do their best to ensure that none of His Majesty's subjects is deprived of a remedy in respect of any wrongful acts committed by Crown servants, steps will be taken at an early date to promote legislation to deal with the position.
I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 19th November.
143. Mr. Layers
asked the Attorney-General how he proposes to implement his promise on 8th October, concerning actions for damages against the Crown that pending the introduction of legislation the Government would do their best to ensure that none of His Majesty's subjects is deprived of a remedy in respect of wrongful acts by Crown servants, in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Royston versus Cavey that an action by a plaintiff against a nominated defendant could not be heard as the court had no jurisdiction; and if he is aware that the matter is urgent in order that claims for damages on behalf of injured workpeople can be proceeded with.
It is impossible to give an answer to cover all cases. Generally speaking, the Treasury Solicitor will make available to the plaintiff's solicitor all information to enable him (the plaintiff's solicitor) to identify and proceed against the appropriate defendant in cases in which there is a defendant who, without infringing the principle enunciated in Adams v. Naylor and Royston v. Cavey, can be made liable. This will cover a great many cases, but in cases in which this cannot be done, if noad hoc arrangement of some other kind can be made, the Crown will be ready to submit the claim to arbitra- 172W tion in whatever manner is best calculated to ensure that the claim can be decided an its merits.