If the Queen sues someone, how would it be dealt with? Since the usual form for criminal cases in Britain (and Canada) is Regina (i.e. the Queen) v. Whoever, how would it be distinguished from a criminal case?
(I know the Queen has sued people before. I remember hearing about such a suit, mostly because of the delightful first line of the legal brief: “The plaintiff is a married woman who resides at Buckingham Palace, London, where she carries on the business of Sovereign.”)
Usually the full title would be “Her Majesty the Queen in right of ______ v. DEFENDANT” (action) or “Her Majesty the Queen in right of _____ v. RESPONDENT” (application)
The short title (for the report series) is usually “______ (A.G./Minister of ____) v. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT”
For instance, in the 1970s the government of PEI sued the feds over their ferry service. The case’s long style is Her Majesty in Right of Prince Edward Island v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada. The case reporters list it as “Prince Edward Island (A.-G.) v. Canada (A.-G.)”
A.-G. is Attorney-General.
Usually the full title would be “Her Majesty the Queen in right of ______ v. DEFENDANT” (action) or “Her Majesty the Queen in right of _____ v. RESPONDENT” (application)
The short title (for the report series) is usually “______ (A.G./Minister of ____) v. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT”
For instance, in the 1970s the government of PEI sued the feds over their ferry service. The case’s long style is Her Majesty in Right of Prince Edward Island v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada. The case reporters list it as “Prince Edward Island (A.-G.) v. Canada (A.-G.)”
A.-G. is Attorney-General.
You are right that criminal and quasi-criminal matters are usually styled R. v. DEFENDANT
Well dammit, I didn’t read your post carefully enough.
My examples are for the office of the Queen bringing suit, not the person of the Queen. I have no idea what they’d do in the UK reports, and highly doubt she’d sue anyone in any other jurisdiction for slip-and-fall.
Then again, a little tumble in the USA, and a good ambulance-chaser, might pay for the new roof at Windsor.
The Queen has no legal person as a private individual, so she cannot be involved in litigation as a private citizen.
In the UK, the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that references to the Sovereign for the time being are to be construed as references to the Crown. I am certain that ordinary civil proceedings can be brought against the Crown but not against the Queen herself (?Crown Proceedings Act 1947) and it would seem to follow that Her Maj. could not bring a case in her private capacity.
I don’t believe the OP’s quote. It must have been a joke along the lines of Wile e. Coyote v. Acme Corp.
Now that the boring (but IMHO correct) answer is out of the way: There is one precedent for a reigning monarch being proceeded against in his capacity as a private individual. He was prosecuted for treason and sentenced to death under the name “Charles Stuart”. My contention, therefore, is that if HMtQ were to be taking the corgis for a walk, trip on a loose flagstone, break her hip and decide to sue the local authority, the case would be:
*Elizabeth Windsor v. Westminster City Council*TomH,
I’m afraid I don’t agree with your conclusion that the queen has no personal capacity.
My understanding is that the Queen has both a personal abnd a public capacity. The statutory references that you mention deal with legal liability of the Queen in her public capacity, in right of the United Kingdom. They regulate how, and in what courts, the Queen can be sued as the representative of the Government.
However, the Queen also has a private capacity, just like any other individual. I would think it would take some pretty specific statutory language to deprive her of her civil rights.
Just as a for instance, the Queen in her private capaticy is one of the world’s wealthiest woman, with land, and I assume, stocks, bonds, and all the other heriditaments of great wealth.
If she has no personal capacity, how could she look after her property? If she enters into a contract to sell a piece of land to some commoner, and the person occupies the land and then stiffs her, she has to be able to go to court to enforce the contract. Otherwise, she simply couldn’t manage her property.
And, in response to Matt’s original question, I would imagine that the style of cause in the law suit would be something like, “Elizabeth, Queen of the United Kingdom, v. Matt.” (If she’s suing in the British courts.)
The reason I suggest this is that there is some question about whether the Queen really has a last name. (Cecil did a column on this some time ago.) Traditionally, she identifies herself legally by her first name, followed by her title.
Similarly, I’ve seen cases in the law reports involving the nobility or royal dukes, and some variant or other of the Christian name and/or title is used: “The Duke of Sussex’ Case;” “Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, v. …”; “In re the Vicountess of Llandstaff.”
And, I’m only going by memory, didn’t the divorce papers read: “Charles, Prince of Wales, v. Diana, Princess of Wales”?
jti,
When I made my original post, I was referring to a copy of Constitutional & Administrative Law, Stanley de Smith and Rodney Brazier, Penguin (?1994). I don’t have the book with me now, so I’m unable to refer back to it, but I seem to recall it containing words to the effect that “the Queen is the Crown”. I’m not a lawyer, though, so I’m prepared to admit that my understanding of the book is less than perfect.
I am certain, though, that she cannot be sued in her private capacity and that there is a specific statutory provision to that effect. I am guessing that if she can’t be sued she can’t sue either.
Having said that, I think you’re probably right about the name in response to the OP.
It’s obvious we need a see a real lawsuit filed to resolve this. Who volunteers to move in next door to Buckingham Palace and start playing their stereo real loud all night?
To assume that “Elizabeth, Queen of …” can’t sue someone because they can’t sue her, while certainly a fair-seeming notion, would be a silly assumption. The reason for insulating her private person from suit would not prevent her from instituting suit a private suit herself, given that she wouldn’t be suing the ruler of the nation.
Now, perhaps, we can get someone who knows the answer to respond… 
Incidentally, what IS next door to Buckingham Palace?
Isn’t it Green Park to the right (when you’re facing Buck House from Queen Vic’s statue), and Whitehall to the left?
If so, I can’t imagine those British civil servants getting too out of hand with the boom boxes one night.
Nothing is directly next door to Buck House, it’s surrounded by parkland on three sides. I think the nearest neighbours are the Territorial Army in the barracks across the road.
Whitehall is a good 5 mins walk away.
We still lack an answer to the OP. Anyone who knows, or will we actually have to fire up the squirrels and look it up? 
DS,
I’ve got a few squirrels going - may have a nut or two for you tomorrow.
jti,
I found this at the Queen’s website while searching for something else:
By the way, any luck with those squirrels? You’ve piqued my curiosity.
[WARNING: Long Post Ahead!!]
Hi, TomH and DSYoungEsq. Finally got the time to go through the nuts and put together the squirrel report. (My ISP went down last weekend, and the job kept me too busy during the week.)
So, you want to sue the Queen, matt? You can, but she can sue back, so be careful.
I checked out the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 that TomH mentioned. It governs the procedure to be followed when suing the Queen in her public capacity, as the formal head of the British executive. However, s. 40(1) of the Act reads:
40(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to proceedings by or against, or authorise proceedings in tort to be brought against, His Majesty in His private capacity.
This provision clearly recognises that the Queen has a private capacity, but doesn’t identify any of the principles governing that capacity. For that, you have to go to the common law, constitutional precedents, and statute law.
The oldest example of the Queen’s private capacity is the Duchy of Lancaster (and the Duchy of Cornwall, when it is vested in the Crown). When Henry VII became King, concluding the War of the Roses, he declared that he held the Duchy of Lancaster in his private capacity, rather than as part of the property of the Crown. Ever since, the Duchy of Lancaster has been separate from the public revenues and assets of the Crown.
Since the Duchy holds property, it gets involved in litigation from time to time. If so, the case is brought by or against the Attorney General for the Duchy of Lancaster. If you’re involved in this type of litigation, the style of cause would be “matt v. Attorney General for the Duchy of Lancaster.”
Another example of private capacity stems from the Crown Private Estates Acts, 1800-1873. These acts govern the ability of the Queen to hold land in her private capacity. She can do so by putting them into trust, in which case law suits would be against the named trustees. If the lands are not in trust, Her Majesty can appoint individuals, in writing under the sign manual, to act on her behalf. Litigation in that case would be brought by or against the individuals she appoints for a particular estate.
As well, although these Acts primarily concern themselves with land held in the private capacity, the 1873 Act also authorises HM to appoint individuals to represent her in claims of contract or debt. If for some reason you owe her money in her private capacity, you would be sued by the individuals she appoints. (I’m guessing that there are two reasons for the appointment of individuals: a), she’s a busy lady; and b) it’s a bit infra dig for HM to go after a debtor personally.)
But you want to sue her, and want her name on the court docket? Doesn’t look like it’s possible. For cases not covered by the above, you run into an ancient constitutional principle – you can’t sue the Queen in her own courts. This goes back to feudal times – a feudal lord could never be impleaded in his own court, you had to go to his feudal superior. Of course, the Queen doesn’t have a feudal superior, so you can’t get there from here.
But, there is a way around this ancient limitation. The common law courts recognised that if you had a good claim against HM, it would be unfair if you couldn’t act on it. The courts created the process called a “Petition of Right.” If you thought the King owed you money, you would send him a petition, outlining your claim. He would have his Attorney General (of England, this time, not the AG of the Duchy of Lancaster) take a quick look at it, and if there was something there, the Crown would waive its immunity from suit. The AG would write “Fiat Justitia” on it (“Let right be done”) and then send it to the courts, to deal with like any other claim.
Of course, the courts wouldn’t actually order the King to pay you money. That would be a bit presumptuous of the Royal courts. Instead, if the claim was good, the courts would declare it to be so, and the Crown would then honour the declaration and pay you.
Since the Proceedings Against the Crown Act 1947 does not affect the private capacity of HM, you would still use the ancient procedure of a petition of right. But, because this is a petition, rather than a normal law suit, the style of cause would be “To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty. The humble Petition of matt, by his solicitor DSYoungEsq, showeth that…” and then go on to list the basis of the claim.
Whew! And by the way, matt, next time you have a neat question, I hope it’s about stock car drivers or something that won’t pique my interest.
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
Thanks, jti. That’s one of the most comprehensive answers I’ve ever seen on this board.
you’re welcome, TomH normally i get squawks that my posts are too long; I’ll take “comprehensive.”
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe