Judicial Review

Question 1

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service

Answer 1

• Grounds for Judicial Review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
• Prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review
  decision-makers must “correctly understand the law that regulates their decision-making power and must give effect to it” - Diplock
• the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago held that the Industrial Stabilisation Act, which restricted the right to strike, was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association and was therefore void.
• affirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the constitution, capable of striking down laws and administrative actions that infringe upon constitutional rights
• Introduced substantive LE
• procedural legitimate expectation arises when a public authority promises or adopts a practice that an individual can reasonably rely upon. However, the court underscored that such expectations must not conflict with overriding public interest considerations

Question 2

Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation

Answer 2

• Wednesbury unreasonableness - a decision so unreasonable, no reasonable body would decide that
• The courts refuse to substitute their own decision for that of the administrative body’s - the judiciary will not review the merits, just the decision making process

Question 3

Collymore v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Answer 3

• Unconstitutionality can constitute a ground for JR - supported by Fiadjeo
• constitutional supremacy over parliamentary authority

Question 4

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission

Answer 4

Any error of law, within or outside jurisdiction, may render a decision ultra vires and void

Question 5

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody

Answer 5

The court held that fairness may require authorities to give reasons, especially when fundamental rights are affected.

while procedural fairness is a fundamental principle, the scope of legitimate expectation is limited to ensuring that individuals are given a fair hearing, without extending to substantive outcomes

Question 6

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

Answer 6

Even where discretionary powers are conferred by statute, those powers must be used to promote the statutory purpose; the House of Lords held that a refusal to refer a complaint, despite a statutory discretion to do so, was unlawful, as it undermined the purpose of the legislation.

The decision reaffirmed that discretionary powers are not immune from review, primarily when used to frustrate legislative intent.

Question 7

Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Answer 7

Judicial review can be used to enforce constitutional rights

The court held that a judge’s failure to provide a fair hearing constituted a breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, thus warranting redress

Question 8

Elliott v The Attorney General of Guyana

Answer 8

JR can be used to ensure executive accountability

granted standing in public interest cases, affirming judicial review as a key mechanism for accountability and good governance.

Question 9

AG v Mohammed Ali (2010)

Answer 9

Judicial review was invoked to challenge administrative decisions involving appointments and dismissals of public officers

Question 10

Barbuda Council v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda

Answer 10

Courts intervene when administrative decisions contravene the enabling statute or fail to adhere to procedural requirements.

granted standing in public interest cases, affirming judicial review as a key mechanism for accountability and good governance.

Question 11

Uniplex (2010)

Answer 11

The European Court of Justice ruled that the requirement for prompt applications should not create uncertainty in judicial review cases

Question 12

Hinds v The Queen

Answer 12

Judicial review should not overstep into legislative or executive functions

Question 13

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001]

Answer 13

While the formal position remains that judicial review is not concerned with the merits, modern jurisprudence, especially in cases involving human rights, has blurred this boundary

courts adopted a more intensive standard of review, weighing the proportionality of government interference against individual rights

Question 14

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 14

fairness is not contingent upon express statutory language; rather, it is presumed to apply unless excluded by clear legislative intent

the dismissal of a police chief without a hearing was held to be unlawful, highlighting that affected individuals must be allowed to present their cases before adverse action is taken

procedural fairness applies to administrative decisions, not only judicial or quasi-judicial ones

Question 15

Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Answer 15

where a decision affects fundamental rights, “fairness will very often require that a person be told the case which is made against him and be allowed to answer it.”

Question 16

Medical Council of Guyana v Jose Ocampo

Answer 16

The CCJ criticised the procedural irregularities in judicial review applications and emphasised the importance of clear procedural frameworks to uphold fairness.

Question 17

Barnwell v Attorney-General and Another

Answer 17

the Court held that the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) recommendation to remove a judge was unconstitutional and void because the judge was denied a fair hearing

Question 18

R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy

Answer 18

“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

Question 19

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)

Answer 19

The judicial articulation of apparent bias being sufficient to invalidate a judgement - the Lord Chancellor Cottenham’s interest in a litigant invalidated his judgment, even absent proof of prejudice

Question 20

Re Pinochet (No 2) [2000]

Answer 20

The appearance of bias (even where none may exist in fact) invalidates a decision

a judge who ruled against the extradition of Pinochet, who had ties to an organisation that was in support of his extradition, Amnesty International. Therefore, it was held that the first decision had to be set aside because of apparent bias, even though there was no suggestion of actual bias

Question 21

Endell Thomas v AG of Trinidad and Tobago [1982]

Answer 21

where a police officer’s dismissal was held to be unconstitutional as not only was he not given an opportunity to be heard, or informed of the case against him before the disciplinary action was taken, but the Prime Minister had a political interest in the outcome.

Question 22

Porter v Magill [2002]

Answer 22

whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias

a city council devised a policy where council homes in marginal wards were to be deliberately sold to likely conservative voters to secure votes. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the council members had acted for an improper purpose and it was argued that there was an apparent bias from the auditor. The House of Lords affirmed the legality of the auditor’s findings but clarified the legal test for apparent bias.

Question 23

Sharma v Browne-Antoine [2006] UKPC 57 (Trinidad and Tobago)

Answer 23

the Privy Council reaffirmed the Porter v Magill test and held that allegations of political influence over the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must meet a high evidentiary threshold

Question 24

Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd

Answer 24

the court clarified that mere prior knowledge, political views, or professional connections do not automatically disqualify decision-makers; rather, the focus is on whether a reasonable observer would perceive a real risk of bias in the particular circumstances

Question 25

Caribbean Broadcasting Union v Cable and Wireless (Barbados)

Answer 25

the court held that administrative action taken without clear statutory authority was ultra vires and unlawful the unilateral suspension of a satellite uplink service by a public utility provider, and the decision was found to be an arbitrary exercise of power unsupported by legal authority

Question 26

Re Langhorne

Answer 26

the court examined whether the Public Service Commission's decision to reinstate a public servant without back pay was lawful, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative actions comply with legal standards

Question 27

Perry v Guyana National Engineering Corporation

Answer 27

the court found that the dismissal of a supernumerary constable was invalid because the procedures used were not authorised by the relevant legislation, rendering the action ultra vires

Question 28

Singh and Ramlakhan v Butler

Answer 28

the claimants challenged the legality of certain election regulations, arguing they were unconstitutional and ultra vires, thereby seeking to prevent their application in upcoming elections.

Question 29

Panday v Virgil

Answer 29

the court noted that in small societies, some degree of association is inevitable, and bias must be assessed in light of what the reasonable Caribbean observer would conclude, not one held to unrealistic standards of institutional detachment

Question 30

Orozco v Attorney General of Belize (2016)

Answer 30

the Supreme Court of Belize struck down Section 53 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised consensual same-sex relations, as unconstitutional the judiciary's willingness to scrutinise and invalidate laws that infringe upon constitutional rights, reinforcing unconstitutionality as a robust ground for judicial review.

Question 31

Matthew v The State [2004]

Answer 31

the Privy Council upheld the mandatory death penalty for murder in Trinidad and Tobago, citing the savings clause that preserved existing laws - while the ground of unconstitutionality serves as a vital check on administrative power, its application is not without challenges. One significant issue is the presence of "savings clauses" in some constitutions, which protect pre-independence laws from constitutional scrutiny

Question 32

O’Reilly v Mackman (1983)

Answer 32

establishing the principle of procedural exclusivity. The House of Lords held that public law matters must be brought via judicial review, especially where no private law rights were at issue. Limited exceptions were allowed, such as when public law issues arose collaterally, when all parties consented, or when justice demanded an exception the importance of timely challenges to administrative decisions to prevent prolonged uncertainty and disruption to public administration

Question 33

Cocks v Thanet District Council (1983)

Answer 33

the House reinforced procedural exclusivity

Question 34

Davy v Spelthorne (1984)

Answer 34

a negligence claim against a public authority was permitted under private law

Question 35

Roy v Kensington and Chelsea FPC (1992)

Answer 35

where a private law claim was allowed despite a public law backdrop, with the House of Lords recognising that procedural rules should not bar legitimate claims

Question 36

Trustees of the Dennis Rye Pension Fund v Sheffield City Council (1998)

Answer 36

public/private law uncertain cases should err on the side of judicial review, but courts should avoid striking out claims solely on procedural grounds

Question 37

Steed v Secretary of State and Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (2000)

Answer 37

the court held that procedural technicalities should not obstruct access to substantive justice

Question 38

R v Peterkin, ex p Soni

Answer 38

certiorari was refused in an immigration matter because an appeal mechanism existed from the Immigration Adjudicator to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, reinforcing the exhaustion of alternative remedies doctrine

Question 39

R v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley

Answer 39

Courts acknowledge exceptions to the exhaustion of alternative remedies principle, such as when the procedure is unfair and the remedy would be inadequate. Here, the court allowed judicial review in an exceptional case where the appellate procedure contained potential breaches of natural justice

Question 40

R v Leeds City Council, ex p Hendry

Answer 40

Latham J clarified that the existence of a statutory appeal route does not automatically preclude judicial review. The key question is whether the alternative procedure is sufficient to resolve the real issue.

Question 41

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners

Answer 41

a quick review of the material should be enough to grant permission if the claim appears arguable - Diplock standing should be assessed on the case's merits, recognising that individuals and organisations may have a legitimate interest in ensuring that public authorities act lawfully

Question 42

Re Morrow and Campbell

Answer 42

Judges have discretion in assessing arguability, leading to differing opinions. HC denied permission, finding no arguable case, but CoA granted, the applicants' legitimate expectations were unlawfully frustrated.

Question 43

Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978]

Answer 43

Only claimant who had a direct personal interest could bring a case for JR

Question 44

Corner House Research [2008]

Answer 44

expanded standing to NGOs and advocacy groups acting in the public interest

Question 45

R v Cotswold District Council

Answer 45

Courts have generally taken a strict approach to time limits for JR, here, proceedings were initiated outside the 6-week statutory limit

Question 46

Maharaj v. National Energy Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago

Answer 46

the Privy Council emphasised that while courts may grant extensions, applicants must provide compelling reasons for delays, and the absence of prejudice to the public authority is a significant factor in favour of extension

Question 47

Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969)

Answer 47

First articulated procedural LE by Denning - individuals who possess a legitimate expectation of being consulted or informed before an adverse decision should be afforded a method of challenging that decision, establishing a broader framework for recognising such expectations within the courts

Question 48

R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan (2001)

Answer 48

English jurisprudence acknowledges substantive legitimate expectations, but the threshold for recognising substantive legitimate expectations remains considerably high, emphasising policy flexibility for public authorities.

Question 49

Attorney General v Boyce (2009)

Answer 49

the CCJ ruled that while public authorities have broad discretion, they must follow established procedures when individuals have relied on them The CCJ laid down requirements for determining whether an expectation is legitimate, such as the need for it to be addressed explicitly to the individuals affected and the need for courts to conduct a balancing exercise to review the assessment’s fairness. The court acknowledged that the condemned people, especially those on death row whose cases were before an international body, had a legitimate expectation that the procedure specified in the relevant treaty would be followed in their cases.

Question 50

Guyana Geology and Mines Commission v. Diamond Quarry Inc. & Baracara Quarries Inc. (2021)

Answer 50

the applicants argued that the GGMC failed to follow an expected procedural framework before revoking permits. The Guyanese court upheld the need for consistency and fairness, ruling in favour of maintaining procedural integrity

Question 51

Legal Officers Staff Association and Manley, Tasha et al v Attorney General et al [2015]

Answer 51

the association challenged policy changes made without consultation, arguing this breached their legitimate expectation. The court held that such expectations can arise from promises or established practices, and the failure to consult violated principles of fairness

Question 52

Pharsalus Inc v Commissioner of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (2013)

Answer 52

For substantive LE, the promise or practice must be attributed to someone with real or apparent authority; subjective belief is not enough

Question 53

R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p. Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Limited [1995]

Answer 53

He emphasised fairness in public administration, noting that frustrating either substantive or procedural expectations could have similar consequences.

Question 54

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment

Answer 54

Laws LJ observing that abuse of power is becoming a core public law concept, but acknowledged the difficulty in articulating this into “hard, clear law”. The CA cautioned that substantive expectations must not override legislative intent or confer unauthorised rights. While courts may compel authorities to consider expectations, they will not enforce them where doing so would usurp executive authority.

Question 55

R (Niazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Answer 55

substantive relief should be exceptional to avoid infringing executive decision-making.

Question 56

R v Newham London Borough Council, ex p. Bibi

Answer 56

with regard to legitimate expectations, detriment and reliance are factual matters rather than legal ones. The question of whether breaking a promise would be so unfair as to constitute an abuse of power is an "uncertain guide" without refinement, according to Schiemann LJ, who was using the Exp Coughlan test.

Question 57

Rowland v Environment Agency

Answer 57

there can be no legitimate expectation that a public body will confer a substantive benefit or extinguish an obligation when it has no power to do so.’

Question 58

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nadarajah

Answer 58

Laws LJ attempted to reformulate the test, shifting away from the "call to arms of abuse of power" and toward a principle based on "good administration". He suggested that unless there is "good reason not to do so," a promise or adopted practice should be honoured with proportionality to the legitimate objective, being a crucial factor

Question 59

Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Answer 59

The appellants contended that the government's representations established a substantive legitimate expectation that they would be permitted to operate from City Gate and be free from PTSC oversight. Despite accepting the English case law, the Privy Council came to the conclusion that there were sufficient facts to induce such an expectation. This implies that the Caribbean's final appellate court is prepared to acknowledge substantive rights based on claims made by public authorities

Question 60

Leacock v Attorney General

Answer 60

the court upheld a claim of substantive legitimate expectation based on a customary practice of granting study leave to police officers who have earned their LLB. The court determined that there was no overriding consideration to justify a departure from this practice and that doing so would violate the applicant's reasonable expectations

Question 61

Chang v Minister of Health

Answer 61

the court rejected a claim of legitimate expectation based on a memorandum regarding retirement options. The court emphasized that a side wind could not attribute legal rights contrary to the plain words of a statute. This demonstrates how Caribbean courts uphold the idea that legitimate expectations cannot override statutory provisions, although being more receptive overall.