Procedural Impropriety

Question 1

Aylesbury Mushrooms

Answer 1

Failure to comply with statutory procedural requirements would invalidate the decision

Question 2

R v Soneji

Answer 2

Focus on material problem to the decision - did Parliament intend that non-compliance with procedural requirement would result in the decision being invalid?

Question 3

JN (Cameroon)

Answer 3

Focus on consequences to the decision

Question 4

Heron

Answer 4

Minor irregularities in road signs did not invalidate penalty notice charges

Question 5

Moseley

Answer 5

Requirement of consultation means ‘meaningful participation by those consulted’
Needed to be provided with outline of realistic alternatives to proposals and reasons for preferred policy

Question 6

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 6

Duty of fairness applies to all decision makers in all decisions

Question 7

GCHQ

Answer 7

Duty to act fairly does not apply where concerns over national security exist

Question 8

Ex parte Pegasus Holdings

Answer 8

Duty to act fairly does not apply in emergency cases where public safety demands urgent action

Question 9

R v Cambridgeshire AHA ex parte B

Answer 9

Duty to act fairly does not apply in resource allocation cases

Question 10

Durayappah

Answer 10

Level of duty depends on nature or status of the post, the circumstances leading to the decision and the sanction itself

Question 11

Lloyd v McMahon

Answer 11

Duty to act fairly does not apply where claimant has waived their rights to fairness
Sliding scale - higher the loss = higher level of fairness
Type of body making decision
Type of decision being made
Regulatory decisions require higher duty of fairness than administrative decisions
Oral hearings not always required - writing will be required

Question 12

Ex parte Tilling

Answer 12

Licence applications must be heard with a fair and unbiased mind

Question 13

Liverpool Taxis

Answer 13

Licensing must be determined in an environment of fairness

Question 14

McInnes v Onslow-Fanne

Answer 14

Factors to consider
Livelihood at stake
Application v forfeiture
Legitimate expectation

Question 15

Abbey Mine v Coal Authority

Answer 15

Commercial matters do not require disclosure of other companies’ applications

Question 16

R v Dunraven School, ex parte B

Answer 16

Must have notice of case against them

Question 17

Ex parte Benaim and Khaida

Answer 17

Not required to give full reasons to protect confidential sources of information

Question 18

Errington v Minster for Health

Answer 18

Evidence had been heard from one side in absence of the other

Question 19

Ex parte Thorpe

Answer 19

Absence of notice may not be unlawful if immaterial

Question 20

Ex parte Polemis

Answer 20

Must have reasonable time to respond to the case against them

Question 21

Bank Mellat (No 2)

Answer 21

Not given chance to respond - not justified on national security grounds

Question 22

BSkyB v Metropolitan Police

Answer 22

Injunction against broadcasting documentary made on basis of hearing with claimants not present - reasons should have been given (position of loss)

Question 23

R (Wright) v SoS Health

Answer 23

Must have the right to make written representations before merits of case were decided

Question 24

Ex parte Anderson

Answer 24

Oral hearing will depend upon subject matter and substantial issues of fact that cannot be resolved by written application

Question 25

R (Smith & West) v Parol Board

Answer 25

Oral hearing would be appropriate when assessing character or allowing prisoner to raise mitigating factors Revoking individual's freedom could only be done after an oral hearing

Question 26

Mackay

Answer 26

No need for oral hearing where no issues of fact exist

Question 27

Osborn v Parole Board

Answer 27

Oral hearing could promote accountability and transparency When liberty is at stake - oral hearing would be appropriate Should guard against temptation to refuse oral hearings as a means of saving time or expense

Question 28

Bourgass

Answer 28

'Secretive decisions based on unchallengeable allegations were neither constructive nor appropriate'

Question 29

Wiseman v Borneman

Answer 29

Allowed for no initial oral hearing if understood one will take place later

Question 30

Ex parte St Germain

Answer 30

Should be able to call witnesses - seriousness of punishment

Question 31

Ex parte Hone

Answer 31

No general right to legal representation

Question 32

Pett v Greyhound Racing Association

Answer 32

Where body is legalistic in nature, legal representation should be allowed

Question 33

Ex parte Tarrant

Answer 33

``` Factors to consider: Seriousness of decision Point of law in question Ability to represent themselves Need for speedy process ```

Question 34

Ex parte Hasan

Answer 34

No common law duty to give reasons

Question 35

Ex parte Doody

Answer 35

Should give reasons - accountability and good administration in public life

Question 36

Ex parte Murray

Answer 36

Should give reasons if no right to appeal, useful role in highlighting errors

Question 37

Ex parte Institution of Dental Surgery

Answer 37

Administrative decision - no need to give reasons due to complexity of decision and range of factors

Question 38

Ex parte Al Fayed

Answer 38

Only need to give partial reasons

Question 39

Ex parte McCarthy

Answer 39

Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done

Question 40

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal

Answer 40

Direct interest = financial gain (automatically invalidates decision) Necessity - if only person capable of making decision then cannot be disqualified for bias

Question 41

Porter v Magill

Answer 41

Indirect interest - is there a real possibility of bias from the point of view of the officious and informed bystander?

Question 42

Ex parte Godden

Answer 42

Pre-formed opinion (had already decided case) - indirect bias

Question 43

Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning

Answer 43

Government ministers will necessarily be biased towards government policy As long as correct complaints procedure has been complied with, courts will not interfere

Question 44

Hannam

Answer 44

Teacher was dismissed by school governors who also sat on council empowered to approve or disapprove of her dismissal - indirect bias

Question 45

Ex parte Quietlyn

Answer 45

Democratically elected persons should be entitled to hold strong views on matter of interest to the electors, as long as they considered individual applications