Judicial Review

Question 1

R v City Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Datafin

Answer 1

Panel were not technically a public body, but the court held that the panel’s activities were analogous to that of a public body. Court will usually look to the source of a body’s power to test for public function, but then it will be examined if their functions are analogous to that of a government body.

Question 2

R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club ex parte Aga Khan

Answer 2

Power of the club derived from contract, so was private law, not public. Club’s actions were not analogous to that of a public body and its decisions could not be judicially reviewed.

Question 3

R v Lloyds of London

Answer 3

Decisions of an insurance broker related to private law, not public.

Question 4

R v Servite Homes and Wandsworth, ex parte Goldsmith

Answer 4

Care home not exercising public function, based on contractual relationships, not amenable to judicial review.

Question 5

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners

Answer 5

Challenge to decision to grant tax amnesty to print workers, court considered that the court must prevent abuse by busybodies and cranks, and the substance of the claim must be considered. In this case it was decided that one tax payer does not have sufficient interest in asking the court to investigate the tax affairs of another.

Question 6

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre

Answer 6

Number of factors were considered in relation to sufficient interest; does not necessarily mean financial or legal interest, the assertion of an interest does not mean that an interest actually exists, and thousands joining a campaign does not mean that sufficient interest exists.

Question 7

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace

Answer 7

Court held that it was in the public interest to allow Greenpeace, an organisation with other 400,000 members in the UK, to bring action against a decision to construct a nuclear power plant.

Question 8

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement

Answer 8

Pressure group was granted standing on the basis of the public importance of the case and the longstanding nature of that organisation’s campaigning in the area.

Question 9

Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

Answer 9

Parliament stipulated in the act creating the commission that it’s determinations could not be reviewed by the courts. Anisminic argued that because the FTC had made an error of law their decision was not a determination but instead a nullity. The court agreed and held that they could review nullities. They also allowed that judicial review can be ousted by clear words.

Question 10

H Lavender & Sons v Ministry of Housing and Local Government

Answer 10

Unlawful delegation of discretion.

Question 11

Carltona v Commissioner for Works

Answer 11

Courts recognise that ministers do delegate on a day to day basis, but this must happen for effective running of government. Carltona doctrine.

Question 12

Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture

Answer 12

Concerning milk marketing scheme, complaints could be referred to a committee if the minister directed, he refused to refer a complaint in case it led to him having to change his policy, held that he had acted for reasons that were irrelevant, he had used his discretion in a manner contrary to the objects of the act.

Question 13

Magill v Porter

Answer 13

Court’s role in determining the purpose of the statute and therefore finding that the minister’s decision was unlawful can lead to controversy, leads to suggestion that court has substituted its own decision for that of the minister.

Question 14

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal

Answer 14

Lord Chancellor decided case involving a company in which he had shares, his decision was set aside.

Question 15

R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet

Answer 15

Not just financial interests which matter, interests which are analogous to financial or proprietary interests can lead to automatic disqualifications - in this case Amnesty International were allowed to intervene in a case, but Lord Hoffmann was the director of their charitable arm, was analogous to a financial interest.

Question 16

Dr Bentley’s Case

Answer 16

Cambridge deprived B of all of his degrees without warning, held “The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence”

Question 17

Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works

Answer 17

House being built without permission was destroyed without notice, damages were granted, implication that there is almost always a right to be heard.

Question 18

Local Government Board v Arlidge

Answer 18

Distinction between making a judicial decision and an administrative one, standards of natural justice are lower for administrative decisions.

Question 19

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 19

Effectively reversed decision from Local Government Board v Arlidge, held that rules of natural justice should also apply to administrative decisions.

Question 20

R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy

Answer 20

Clerk to the justices in this case was also a member of the solicitors firm acting against the defendant although he had no impact in the case justice must be seen to be done.

Question 21

Porter v Magill

Answer 21

Objective test defined as “would the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased?”

Question 22

R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan

Answer 22

Severely disabled applicant was moved to care home with a promise that it would be her “home for life”, a decision was later made to close this care home, held that there was a substantive legitimate expectation but the health authority could go back on it if there was a “sufficient overriding public interest”.

Question 23

ABCIFER v Secretary of State for Defence

Answer 23

No legitimate expectation had been breached as the representation in this case was not clear and unequivocal enough.
Keeping the standards of proportionality and irrationality separate is unnecessary and confusing, but “it is not for this court to perform its burial rights”

Question 24

Bancoult (No 2)

Answer 24

Statement that they were working on resettling the Chagosians wasn’t a legitimate expectation, no one would contemplate resettlement unless the government supported it.

Question 25

R v Secretary of State for Education ex parte Begbie

Answer 25

Scheme to fund pupil’s education in an independent school was withdrawn, sec state had discretion to continue funding but refused. Held that the legitimate expectation couldn’t be enforced, if it was it would remove the discretion enjoyed by the sec state.

Question 26

Niazi v Sec State for Home Defence

Answer 26

Compensation scheme was abolished, affecting 2 wide groups, held that for legitimate expectation to arise there must have been a specific undertaking aimed at a particular individual or group.

Question 27

R (Wheeler) v PM

Answer 27

The labour party had promised a referendum on membership of the EU but it wasn’t given, held that the question of whether there was a legitimate expectation was so deep in the political field that the courts would not enter the area.

Question 28

Kruse v Johnson

Answer 28

Court may hold bylaws invalid as unreasonable, but only in extreme circumstances.

Question 29

Wednesbury Case

Answer 29

Decisions may be held invalid if they are “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”

Question 30

GCHQ Case

Answer 30

Defined irrationality as “A decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”

Question 31

Roberts v Hopwood

Answer 31

Council paid same high wages to men and women, judge held it would be awful if local authorities exercised power “guided by eccentric principles of socialist philanthropy” held that the wages were unreasonable.

Question 32

R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith

Answer 32

Super Wednesbury - “The greater the policy content of a decision… the more hesitant the court must necessarily be in holding a decision to be irrational”
Heightened/anxious scrutiny - the more substantial the interference with human rights, the more likely the court will be to intervene.

Question 33

Smith and Grady v UK

Answer 33

Held that there was unlawful interference with article 8 rights, the interference wasn’t proportionate to the legitimate aim of furthering national security.

Question 34

R v SSHD ex parte Brind

Answer 34

House of Lords held that the proportionality test wasn’t a part of domestic law, as it involves a review of the merits of a decision.

Question 35

R (Daly) v SSHD

Answer 35

Court held blanket policy of searching prisoners’ cells in their absence was a greater than necessary interference with rights to serve the legitimate objective. Proportionality test may go further than traditional grounds of review, may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accord to interests and considerations.

Question 36

R (Farrakhan) V SSHD

Answer 36

Deference - question referred back to the Home Sec because he is far more likely to reach an informed decision than the court.

Question 37

R v Cambridge Health Authority ex parte B

Answer 37

“Were we to express opinions on the effectiveness of medical treatment… we would be straying too far from the sphere which under our constitution is awarded to us”