Public - Judicial Review - Grounds: Cases And Principles

22 Questions  I  By Chriscullen
Please take the quiz to rate it.

Public - Judicial Review - Grounds: Cases And Principles
This is a quiz which should cover the entire topic of Judicial Review Grounds.

  
Changes are done, please start the quiz.


Questions and Answers

Removing question excerpt is a premium feature

Upgrade and get a lot more done!
  • 1. 
    Lord Diplock in a very famous case established the three different Grounds for Judicial Review: Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Dixon

    • B. 

      CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ)

    • C. 

      Anisminic Case


  • 2. 
    So, the GCHQ case established the three grounds for judicial review. This section will relate to Illegality. It is important to note at this point that the Grounds are only considered if the claimant is successful in the Permission Stage. Illegality deals with simple ultra vires, and abuses of discretion. In this case, the public body was empowered to establish wash-houses for non-commercial use by residents. The abuse of power came as the laundry shop was opened on a commercial basis.
    • A. 

      AG v Fulham Corporation

    • B. 

      Porter v Magill

    • C. 

      Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones


  • 3. 
    In this case it was established that a public body cannot levy a charge on the public without statutory authority. Planning authority charged £25 for informal consultation.
    • A. 

      R v MOD ex parte Smith

    • B. 

      Ex parte McCarthy & Stone

    • C. 

      Padfield v Minister of Agriculture


  • 4. 
    In this case, the public body used their power to build public toilets to build a subway to access them. This was deemed to be going outside what the statute intended to be within their power.
    • A. 

      Ealing Council ex parte Times

    • B. 

      Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for Environment

    • C. 

      Westminster Corp v LNW Railway


  • 5. 
    Some statutes will permit very widely worded power to ministers or bodies, using wording like "as he sees fit..." which can be argued covers all eventualities. However, it was found in this case that, "however subjectively worded" or widely worded... Discretionary powers are never absolute.
    • A. 

      Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

    • B. 

      Sagnata v Norwich

    • C. 

      Carltona v Commissioners of Works


  • 6. 
    Discretion can ligitimately lead to a number of different conclusions. To take away these conclusions is referred to as FETTERING discretion, which is unlawful. In this case, the discretion was fettered when a policy not to grant any licenses was put into force - which was found to be unlawful.
    • A. 

      R v Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones

    • B. 

      Porter v Magill

    • C. 

      Sagnata v Norwich


  • 7. 
    This case also refers to an overly rigid policy, as it did not allow for exceptions. Public bodies are entitled to adopt firm policies, as long as they aren't so rigid that there is no chance for exceptions - as this can fetter discretion.
    • A. 

      Barnard v National Dock Labour Board

    • B. 

      British Oxygen v Minister of Technology

    • C. 

      Ealing Council, ex parte Times


  • 8. 
    Delegated discretion is generally not allowed - which case established that public bodies "should exercise the powers which they were granted themselves" Judicial and disciplinary powers are unsuitable for discretion.
    • A. 

      Barnard v National Dock Labour Board

    • B. 

      Port Talbot, ex parte Jones

    • C. 

      Wheeler v Leicester City Council


  • 9. 
    This case however, suggested that delegation of powers can be implied, for instance, a minister can delegate their powers.
    • A. 

      Padfield v Minister of Agriculture

    • B. 

      Carltona v Commissioners for Works

    • C. 

      Porter v Magill


  • 10. 
    The courts consider the relevancy of the decision to the powers they were granted, For instance, in this case, the council used their powers as a weapon in a dispute. It relates to a ban of certain publications in a library.
    • A. 

      Ridge v Baldwin

    • B. 

      Barnard v National Dock Labour Board

    • C. 

      Ealings Council, ex parte Times


  • 11. 
    This case related to the relevancy rule and involves where a decision for housing was made to grant a councillor housing due to the status of the councillor. This was seen as an irrelevant factor in deciding whether they should be given housing.
    • A. 

      Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones

    • B. 

      Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Pinochet Ugarte

    • C. 

      Porter v Magill


  • 12. 
    Improper Purpose also comes under the header of Illegality. Powers can only be used for the pupose they were granted. This is sometimes stated in the statute. Which case established this rule?
    • A. 

      Sagnata v Norwich

    • B. 

      Sydney v Campbell

    • C. 

      British Oxygen v Minister of Technology


  • 13. 
    In this case a sports club was banned from using a public park because of their views of the apatheid boycott. This was considered to be an improper use of the public bodies power to control access to the park - individuals/organisations cannot be punished for their views.
    • A. 

      Schmidt v HS

    • B. 

      Somerset City Council v Fewings

    • C. 

      Wheeler v Leicester City Council


  • 14. 
    The next section will cover Irrationality. This is described as a "decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority could ever have come to it." Who quoted this?
    • A. 

      Lord Denning

    • B. 

      Lord Green

    • C. 

      Lord Laws


  • 15. 
    It is a very high threshold to prove irrationality of a public authority - this strictly considers only the intentions of parliament. Which case establishes that the merits of the case shaln't be reviewed?
    • A. 

      Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment

    • B. 

      Ealings Council ex parte Times

    • C. 

      Port Talbot Borough Council ex parte Jones


  • 16. 
    This section will cover Procedural Impropriety - again established by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case. This covers a bodies failure to: observe procedural rules, and/or observe basic common law rules. A: Failing to comply with a statutory procedure may invalidate a decision, for example publicity and consultation rules. B: Some people may argue they have a ligitimate expectation usually to be consulted, before a decision has been made.  A subcategory from ligitimate expectation is Express Undertaking. In this case "Aliens" (foreigners) who had their leave prematurely terminated had legitimate expectation to have their case heard.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte

    • B. 

      Ex parte Khan

    • C. 

      Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs


  • 17. 
    This case deals with past practice. The practice had always been to consult the union before making any changes to the employees employment contract - therefore they had legitimate expectation to be consulted.
    • A. 

      GCHQ Case

    • B. 

      Ridge v Baldwin

    • C. 

      MOD ex parte Smith


  • 18. 
    Natural Justice can be summarised into an equation: Right to be heard + Rule against bias = General Duty of Fairness Natural justice is now generally concerned with public bodies determining individual rights: Which case established this?
    • A. 

      MOD ex parte Smith

    • B. 

      Ridge v Baldwin

    • C. 

      GCHQ Case


  • 19. 
    In this case, the lord chancellor had shares in one of the companies involved which lead to their favoured decision. It was phrased as he had Direct Pecuniary Interest.
    • A. 

      Porter v Magill

    • B. 

      Carltona v Commissioners of Works

    • C. 

      Dimes v Grand Canal


  • 20. 
    In this case, the HOUSE OF LORDS judge (Corrupt or what?!) had a close alignment with one of the parties involved before the case... The decision was therefore quashed.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Khan

    • B. 

      Ex parte Pinochet Ugart

    • C. 

      Ex parte Smith


  • 21. 
    In this case: a conservative minister was involved in a sceme to manipulate the sale of council properties to influence general elections (as - council property tenants are more likely to vote Labour)
    • A. 

      Porter v Magill

    • B. 

      Ex parte Jones

    • C. 

      Ex parte Smith


  • 22. 
    Check the relevant boxes: what are the rules of a fair hearing?
    • A. 

      Opportunity to know the case against them

    • B. 

      Opportunity to state their case

    • C. 

      Opportunity to comment on all considered materials

    • D. 

      No communication with the judge without the other parties knowledge

    • E. 

      No communication with competitor law firms

    • F. 

      Must pay all own costs win or lose


Back to top

Removing ad is a premium feature

Upgrade and get a lot more done!
Take Another Quiz
We have sent an email with your new password.