The Anthropomorphic Errors in Commercial Law: Human Rights and the Judiciary's Approach

By Diego F. Soto-Miranda

Introduction

In the complex intersection between commercial law and human rights, a key question persists: should corporate entities be afforded human rights protections designed for individuals? Over the past decade, the UK judiciary has seen an increasing trend of anthropomorphising corporations, particularly under the Human Rights Act 1998. This article explores the key judicial trends and cases that have shaped this approach, highlighting the implications for both commercial entities and human rights jurisprudence.

Human Rights Act 1998: Extending Rights to Corporate Entities

The Human Rights Act was originally intended to safeguard the rights of individuals. However, a growing body of case law reveals a shift where corporate bodies have increasingly relied on these protections. This raises significant questions:

• Can a company, a non-human entity, truly claim rights such as freedom of expression or the right to a fair trial?

• How does the judiciary balance the commercial interests of corporations with the intended purpose of human rights legislation?

Key Judicial Trends

Several notable cases highlight this evolving trend:

1. Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty's Treasury

Bank Mellat, a private Iranian bank, successfully argued that sanctions imposed by the UK government violated its rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (right to property). This case set a precedent for corporations using the Human Rights Act to challenge governmental actions.

2. Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL

In this defamation case, the House of Lords recognised the freedom of expression of a corporate entity under Article 10, indicating that the rights traditionally associated with individuals can, under certain circumstances, apply to companies.

Anthropomorphic Errors: Judicial Overreach?

While these cases reveal the judiciary's willingness to extend rights to corporations, they also expose potential pitfalls:

• Judicial Overreach: There is a risk that courts, in their attempt to apply human rights principles broadly, may blur the lines between natural persons and legal entities.

• Policy Implications: Extending human rights protections to corporations could dilute the effectiveness of these rights for individuals and potentially undermine regulatory efforts.

Conclusions

The judiciary's approach to corporate human rights claims reflects a nuanced and evolving landscape. While there is a legal basis for extending certain rights to corporations, caution must be exercised to avoid undermining the original purpose of human rights protections.

As commercial and human rights law continue to intersect, legal professionals must stay attuned to the implications of anthropomorphising corporate entities.

Diego F. Soto-Miranda is a barrister specialising in commercial, defamation and human rights law. For further insights or to discuss representation, get in touch via email.

Additional Resource:

For the full in-depth analysis, you can download the original published article here:

📄 Download: Anthropomorphic Errors in Commercial Law (Published in Business Law Review, 2013)