Gerald Upjohn, Baron Upjohn, Date of Birth, Date of Death
TweetGerald Upjohn, Baron Upjohn
British Baron
Date of Birth: 25-Feb-1903
Date of Death: 27-Jan-1971
Profession: judge
Nationality: United Kingdom
Zodiac Sign: Pisces 
About Gerald Upjohn, Baron Upjohn
- Gerald Ritchie Upjohn, Baron Upjohn, CBE, PC, DL (25 February 1903 – 27 January 1971) was a British soldier and judge. The younger son of William Henry Upjohn served in the Welsh Guards during the Second World War, reaching the rank of brigadier.
- In 1948, he sat with Sir George Lynskey and Sir Godfrey Vick on the Lynskey tribunal.
- Appointed to the Privy Council in 1960, he was Lord Justice of Appeal from 1960 to 1963.
- On 26 November 1963 he became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and was made additionally a life peer by the style title Baron Upjohn, of Little Tey in the County of Essex.While a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary he contributed to a number of significant cases.
- Three cases of particular importance are Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 (giving a powerful dissent), Vandervell v IRC [1967] 2 AC 291 (where he gave a majority speech) and In re Gulbenkian's Settlements [1970] AC 508. An interesting problem arose on Lord Upjohn's death.
- The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords would ideally sit with an odd number of judges, to ensure a clear decision.
- Lord Upjohn's death raised the problem of an equally divided Appellate Committee.
- Kennedy v Spratt [1971] 2 WLR 667 remained on the docket and Lord Upjohn had already prepared a speech, intending to vote with Lord Reid and Lord Diplock, dismissing the appeal.
- Lord Reid read Lord Upjohn's speech as a part of his own and in accordance with the presumption in favour of the status quo (semper pracsumitur pro negante), the appeal was dismissed.
- It has been pointed out that, 'had Lord Upjohn been in favour of allowing the appeal, the application of the principle would have produced a disgruntled appellant whose victory had been snatched from under his nose: it may well be that such manifest injustice would have led to the case being reargued before a reconstituted court.'
Read more at Wikipedia