Judicial Review

Judicial Review Cases

Flashcard Set Preview

Side ASide B
Fleet Street Casuals Case
StandingTo have standing in Judicial Review, you must be able to distinguish yourself from all others who can claim an interest.
Rose Theatre Trust Case
StandingFor an association to have an interest, at least one member of the association must have an interest. You cannot create an interest simply by "banding together".
R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
StandingA low threshold for standing in judicial review may be appropriate where there is no other way of holding the decision-maker to account, but where there are others who could...
R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
StandingStanding may be given to anyone with a serious issue to argue where a useful purpose may be served.
R (Greenpeace) v Inspectorate of Pollution
StandingTo prove a diffuse interest, an association must:Be able to prove a personal interestHave sufficient resources, expertise and international reputation to be able to assist the...
R v Richmond Council ex parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd
Simple Ultra ViresNo charge can be made without express statutory permissionEven though meetings with planning officers were reasonably incidental to the council's...
Hazell v Hammersmith Council
Simple Ultra ViresPowers of a local authority include both those expressly permitted and those "reasonably incidental" to statutory powers.
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Simple Ultra ViresForcible removal of inhabitants could not be justified under a power for "peace and good governance"
Bromley LBC v GLC
Simple Ultra ViresAn obligation to provide an "efficient and economic" transport service implied an obligation to break even and did not allow improvement of the London...
Carltona v Commissioner of Works
Wrongful DelegationIt is generally acceptable for a minister to delegate his powers to civil servants and local government officials
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
Wrongful DelegationA statute which authorises one level of delegation does not therefore authorise further delegation
Simms Motor Units Ltd v Minister of Labour
Wrongful DelegationWhere a discretion is granted to a subordinate officer, it may not be taken away by orders from a superior.
Lavender & Son Ltd v Minister of Housing
Wrongful DelegationWhere a statutory duty is vested in one minister, the may not adopt a policy whereby the decision is effectively made b another minister.
Porter v Magill (IP)
Improper PurposePowers must be use for the reasons for which they were conferred, not for political purposes.Unlawful for Conservative majority to adopt a policy of selling council...
Congreve v Home Office
Improper PurposeUnlawful to use statutory powers as a means of extracting money which Parliament has given the executive no mandate to demand.Home Secretary threatened to use his power...
Westminster Corporation v London and North Western Railway Co. (1905) <- use with caution
Improper PurposeWhere exercise of a power fulfils the purposes for which the power was given, it may not matter that the authority were influenced by an extraneous motive.
Padfield v Minister for Agriculture
Fettering DiscretionWhere a minister has a statutory power to decide whether complaints are heard, he must use this power, as intended, to ensure that complaints are dealt with properly,...
R v Home Secretary, ex parte P and Q
Fettering DiscretionA decision-maker may adopt a general policy which will be applied in the absence of extenuating circumstances.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Venables (FD)
Fettering DiscretionA decision-maker may not have a policy that certain applications will always be refused.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Venables (EL)
Error of LawA decision-maker must direct itself correctly on the law.Home Secretary incorrectly acted on the assumption that "life sentence" and detention "at her Majesty's pleasure"...
Education Secretary v Tameside Council
Error of LawA power to intervene where an authority is acting "unreasonably" means "so unreasonably that no reasonable authority would...", not wherever the minister with the power...
Audi alterem partem
Right to a fair hearing
Nemo judex in causa sua
None should sit in judgement of his own cause
Ridge v Baldwin
HearingsEven where there is no statutory duty to give a hearing, the gravity of a decision to the individual should be considered. The more severe the repercussions, the more likely...
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works
HearingsCourts apply a "sliding scale" in deciding whether a hearing should have been given.Cooper's half-built house was demolished because he'd built without planning permission....
Porter v Magill (B)
BiasThe test for bias is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would consider that there was a real possibility of bias.
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Properties
BiasWhere there is any pecuniary interest, a judge must recuse himself.
R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy
BiasThe application of the rules on bias is much stricter than the sliding scale approach given to hearings."It is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance that...
R v Bow Street Magistrate ex parte Pinochet
BiasA judge must recuse himself where the decision of a case would affect the promotion of a cause by one party with which the judge is involved.Judge's involvement with Amnesty...
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody
ReasonsIt comes down to whether it is fair and just in the circumstances to give reasons. A sliding scale considering the severity of harm suffered will be applied.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fayed
ReasonsWhere giving reasons would disclose matters not in the public interest, the decision maker should so indicate. There is a requirement to give sufficient information to allow...
A-G for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu
Procedural Legitimate ExpectationsBy announcing that hearings will take place, an authority creates a legitimate expectation to a hearing even where no previous legal right to such...
R v North and East Devon Healthy Authority ex parte Coughlan
Substantive Legitimate ExpectationsDecision must be of great importance to the individual, there must have been a promise made to a specific individual or class of people and the court...
Alesbury Mushrooms Case
Statutory ProcedureWhere a body mentioned in statute was not consulted, the decision may invalidated in relation to that body alone.
R v Brent LBC ex parte Gunning
Statutory Procedure 1. If a legal duty to consult exists in statute, the local authority must have made consultations at a formative stage.2. Any consultation will be invalidated if...
R v Wainwright
Statutory ProcedureIf it's clear that a decision would have been the same had statutory procedure been followed, the decision may not be overturned.The practical ramifications of the...
R v Hillingdon Council
Statutory ProcedureWhere an authority fails to perform a duty required by statute, they may be ordered by the court to do so.
R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex parte Hague
Even if an individual succeeds in judicial review, this does not necessary entitle them to damages at private law.
Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Irrationality)Irrationality means a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made it.
R v Somerset Council Council ex parte Fewings
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Relevant / Irrelevant Considerations)A consideration which is not explicitly banned from consideration within the statute may be considered.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Nottingham Council Council
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Irrationality)The courts can apply the higher threshold of Wednesbury Unreasonableness when they do not want to intervene in political disputes.Dispute...
Wheeler v Leicester City Council
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Relevant / Irrelevant Considerations)An authority cannot use its powers to do something in order to follow an entirely different agenda, even where this...
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (WU)
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Relevant / Irrelevant Considerations)It is for the courts to decide which factors are relevant to the purposes of an act.
Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Relevant / Irrelevant Considerations)Anything which is not clearly relevant can be held to be irrelevant.

Upgrade and get a lot more done!