Judicial Review

Judicial Review Cases
Changes are done, please view the flashcard.

Preview Flashcards

Fleet Street Casuals Case
To have standing in Judicial Review, you must be able to distinguish yourself from all others who can claim an interest.
Rose Theatre Trust Case
For 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
A 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 bring judicial review, it may be denied.
R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Standing may be given to anyone with a serious issue to argue where a useful purpose may be served.
R (Greenpeace) v Inspectorate of Pollution
To 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 court.
R v Richmond Council ex parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd
Simple Ultra Vires
No charge can be made without express statutory permission
Even though meetings with planning officers were reasonably incidental to the council's statutory powers, this does not mean that a charge was reasonably incidental.
Hazell v Hammersmith Council
Simple Ultra Vires
Powers 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 Vires
Forcible removal of inhabitants could not be justified under a power for "peace and good governance"
Bromley LBC v GLC
Simple Ultra Vires
An obligation to provide an "efficient and economic" transport service implied an obligation to break even and did not allow improvement of the London Underground for social purposes.
Carltona v Commissioner of Works
Wrongful Delegation
It is generally acceptable for a minister to delegate his powers to civil servants and local government officials
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
Wrongful Delegation

A statute which authorises one level of delegation does not therefore authorise further delegation
Simms Motor Units Ltd v Minister of Labour
Wrongful Delegation

Where 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 Delegation

Where 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 Purpose
Powers 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 houses in the hopes of securing votes.
Congreve v Home Office
Improper Purpose

Unlawful 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 to revoke TV licences unless licence payers paid an extra £6 each.
Westminster Corporation v London and North Western Railway Co.
(1905) <- use with caution
Improper Purpose
Where 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 Discretion
Where 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, and not to prevent complaints.
Minister refused to use his statutory power to refer complains about a milk marketing scheme to the complaints board.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte P and Q
Fettering Discretion

A 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 Discretion

A decision-maker may not have a policy that certain applications will always be refused.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Venables (EL)
Error of Law
A 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" were the same thing.
Education Secretary v Tameside Council
Error of Law
A power to intervene where an authority is acting "unreasonably" means "so unreasonably that no reasonable authority would...", not wherever the minister with the power disagrees with the action.
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
Even 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 that an individual should have been allowed a hearing.
Ridge was fired rather than being allowed to resign, costing him his pension.
Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works
Courts 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. Should have been given a hearing.
Porter v Magill (B)
The 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

Where there is any pecuniary interest, a judge must recuse himself.
R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy

The 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 justice is not only done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
R v Bow Street Magistrate ex parte Pinochet
A 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 International was not discosed, led to case being heard again before different Law Lords.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody
It 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
Where 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 the party to make representations.
A-G for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu
Procedural Legitimate Expectations
By announcing that hearings will take place, an authority creates a legitimate expectation to a hearing even where no previous legal right to such exists.
R v North and East Devon Healthy Authority ex parte Coughlan
Substantive Legitimate Expectations
Decision 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 must weight up the fulfilment of the promise against the public interest.
Alesbury Mushrooms Case
Statutory Procedure
Where 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 no reasons are given for the proposal.3. Adequate time must be given to enable consideration of proposal and response.4. The product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account.
R v Wainwright
Statutory Procedure
If 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 court's decision will be considered.
R v Hillingdon Council
Statutory Procedure
Where 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 between Labour council and Conservative minister, court ruled the action was not so unreasonable...
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 alternative agenda is statutorily enforced.
Council used statutory powers to manage playing fields to ban rugby club because some of its members went on a tour in South Africa at the height of Apartheid.
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!