Con Law Flashcards
(6 cards)
The Gambling Executive has the power to grant/withdraw required bookmaker licences in the UK. The Executive has decided to withdraw the licence from a bookmaker after hearing rumours that the bookmaker is laundering money. The bookmaker challenges the Executive’s decision by judicial review.
Which of the following grounds is most likely to be successful for the bookmaker’s judicial review claim?
(A) Biased Decision
(B) Violated right to be heard
(C) Failed to give reasons
(D) Failed to consult
(E) Unreasonable decision
(B) Right to be heard
This right varies from case to case. For a forfeiture case (where someone is deprived of a right), the individual is entitled to hear the case against them and to respond. Here, the bookmaker had the right to run a gambling business, which means they should have had the opportunity to respond to the case against them before losing their licence.
NOTE:
- No general duty to consult or to give reasons
In 2021, the Court of Appeal is interpreting a provision of assimilated law. The appellant wishes to rely on the interpretation provided by the High Court in a case from 2011. However, the respondent argues that the court is free to adopt its own interpretation of the law.
What is the legal position:
(A) CoA should refer the case to the Supreme Court, which is not bound by assimilated domestic case law.
(B) The High Court’s judgment from 2011 forms part of assimilated EU case law, and it is not binding on the Court of Appeal.
(C) The High Court’s judgment from 2011 forms part of assimilated EU case law, and it is binding on the Court of Appeal.
(D) The High Court’s judgment from 2011 forms part of assimilated domestic case law, and it is not binding on the Court of Appeal.
(E) The High Court’s judgment from 2011 forms part of assimilated domestic case law, and it is not binding on the Court of Appeal.
(D) Although the High Court’s judgment is part of assimilated domestic case law, it is not binding on the Court of Appeal because UK courts are bound by assimilated law only from courts that are higher or equivalent to them.
The High Court has to interpret an EU regulation that remains part of UK law as assimilated direct legislation. In a judgment from 2022, the CJEU authoritatively provided a definition of a key part of the regulation. This part of the regulation is relevant to the case before the High Court.
How should the High Court should approach the CJEU judgment?
The High Court may follow the CJEU judgment because the regulation is part of assimilated law, but generally, UK courts are not bound by any judgments made by the CJEU after the end of the transition period (that is, December 2020), even if those decisions relate to assimilated law.
Rather, the courts may ‘have regard’ for those decisions (that is, treat them as persuasive precedent).
In 2024, the Welsh Parliament enacted the Renewable Energy Act 2024. It has recently emerged that the Act conflicts with a provision of assimilated law. In response, the Welsh Parliament held a non-legislative vote to state that it intends for the 2024 to be valid.
Is the Act valid?
Yes, the 2024 Act is valid because the Welsh Parliament is no longer bound by the principle of supremacy.
The European Union (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 replaced retained EU law with assimilated law. This repealed the principle of the supremacy of retained EU law. Unless it has been otherwise repealed, assimilated law remains part of UK law only to the extent that it does not conflict with any other enactment, including legislation enacted by the Welsh Parliament.
A local council has allowed planning permission for a new car park near a train station. The car park has no disabled parking spaces. The council wanted to make as many parking spaces as possible available for all drivers at all times, and made no other considerations. An association eager to encourage disabled drivers wants to challenge the decision to grant planning permission via judicial review.
Which of the following grounds for the association’s judicial review claim is most likely to succeed?
(A) Irrelevant Considerations
(B) Failure to meet legitimate expectations
(C) They breached the Public Sector Equality Act
(D) Unreasonable decision
(E) Failure to use correct procedure
(C) They breached the Public Sector Equality Act
The Public Sector Equality Duty places several requirements on bodies within the public sector, such as showing due regard for removing or eliminating disadvantages suffered by those who share a protected characteristic (e.g., disability)
