Take Another Quiz

Public - Judicial Review Standing And Ouster Clauses: Principles And Cases

20 Questions
Public - Judicial Review Standing And Ouster Clauses: Principles And Cases

This quiz will cover the principles, cases and legislation relevant to Judicial Review Standing and Ouster Clauses.

Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    • A. 

      Public Bodies

    • B. 

      Private Industries

    • C. 

      Any organisation, public or private.

  • 2. 
    What is Judicial Review interested in?
    • A. 

      The merits of the decision made

    • B. 

      The legality decision making process

    • C. 

      The neglect of fundamental human rights

  • 3. 
    The Act grants power to a public body - who then exercises the power (or abuses it's power) - which in turn affects a member of the public who raises a JR action to the courts - who review the legality of the exercise of the public bodies power. Simple really. Judicial review is the main vehicle for ensuring respect for this principle... Law should be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective What is this principle?
    • A. 

      Legality principle

    • B. 

      Principle of Fair Justice

    • C. 

      Nature of Power Principle

  • 4. 
    As well as ensuring respect of the Legality Principle, Judicial review supervises the exercise of discretionary powers. A Judicial Review action can only be brought against a Public Body... Well... This was certainly the case before 1987. Which case held that Private bodies exercising public functions (powers derived from statute) may be amenable to JR?
    • A. 

      Ex parte Aga Khan

    • B. 

      Raz

    • C. 

      Datafin

  • 5. 
    A case followed Datafin regarding the disciplinary committee of the Jocky Club. It was argued that this committee, although a private company, regulates significant national activity... However, it was HELD: The powers derive from a contract not statute therefore exercising private rights, not public functions.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Aga Khan

    • B. 

      Ex parte Wachmann

    • C. 

      Fleet Street Casuals

  • 6. 
    In this case, a Rabbi was refused permission to hold Rabbinical office by the Chief Rabbi who had set up a commission to investigate his case; and eventually terminated his contract. It was Held: that because the government had not backed the Chief Rabbi's regulation by statutory powers and penalties, it was not considered to be holding public functions and was not considered to be a public body.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Aga Khan

    • B. 

      Ex parte Wachmann

    • C. 

      Anisminic

  • 7. 
    What is the first "Stage" of judicial review?
    • A. 

      Application

    • B. 

      Permission

    • C. 

      Substantive Hearing

  • 8. 
    The Permission Stage of Judicial Review involves 3 sub-stages... A time limit - "PROMPT and in any event LESS THAN THREE MONTHS" Which case established this principle?
    • A. 

      Dixon Case

    • B. 

      Ex parte Aga Khan

    • C. 

      Ex parte TVNI Ltd

  • 9. 
    The decision will be made based on the Legality of the decision making process - not the merits of the decision. Then - based on the promptitude of their application, and assuming it is a question of the legality of the decision making process, Standing may be granted. - And your case heard. What sets out the procedure for applying for Judicial Review?
    • A. 

      Public Order Act

    • B. 

      Parliament Act

    • C. 

      Civil Procedure Rules

  • 10. 
    The Civil Procedure Rules set out the rules for applying for Judicial Review, in a Pre-Action Protocol which came into force in March 2002, para 5 states: This protocol sets out a code of good practice and contains the steps which parties should generally follow before making a claim for judicial review. This ensures all alternative methods have been exhausted before litigation (i.e. ADR) where appropriate - The protocol does not have to be followed - however the court will expect the protocol to be followed if it is appropriate - the protocol would not be appropriate in cases where the defendant does not have the power to change the decision... And where the case is deemed to be "urgent" e.g. claimant is shortly to be removed from the country. Before the Civil Procedure Rules (Part 54), the court filtered applications into those "unmeritorious" and "promply - within 3 months", through the applications that did not fit the criteria. The application was made "ex parte" (in the absence of the respondent) What established the older rules?
    • A. 

      Senior Courts Act

    • B. 

      Rules of the Supreme Court

    • C. 

      Common law principle

  • 11. 
    Now, the procedure encourages interaction between the parties - leaving the parties and the Administrative Court well informed before the case is heard - or on some occassions the dispute is resolved without the need of litigation. Applicants will only be granted standing however, if they have "sufficient interest" in the matter - under which act?
    • A. 

      Senior Courts Act

    • B. 

      Civil Procedure Rules

    • C. 

      Administration of Justice Act

  • 12. 
    So the Senior Courts Act 1981 requires that the claimant has sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. So who has sufficient interest?  Under the individual interest approach, the courts do not question the alleged unlawful conduct (the merits of the claim) until the substantive hearing - and will only allow an individual with special interest to be granted standing in the permission stage. Which case deals with the interest of individuals? - This case does not focus on the illegality only the special interest of the group of archaeologists who are raising the issue.
    • A. 

      Ex parte McCarthy & Stone

    • B. 

      Rose Theatre Trust

    • C. 

      Dixon Case

  • 13. 
    This case was the first to start the ball rolling for the liberalised approach to judicial review - it involved the decision of the inland revenue to not chase past unpaid tax from workers provided they pay the tax in the future. This case "relaxed the rules of locus standi (standing) - to consider the wrongs of the public body - not the rights private individual." Which case was this?
    • A. 

      Fleet Street Casuals

    • B. 

      Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust

    • C. 

      Ex parte Greenpeace

  • 14. 
    Although this case was not decided in favour of the claimant - the relaxed rules from Fleet Street Casuals were used to grant standing and pass this case onto the substantive hearing. The case was in relation to the Treasury funding the European Community budget.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust

    • B. 

      Ex parte Greenpeace

    • C. 

      Ex parte Smedley

  • 15. 
    This case established that the best placed challenger is to be considered to have sufficient interest thus granted standing.
    • A. 

      Ex parte Greenpeace

    • B. 

      Ex parte Rees Mogg

    • C. 

      Ex parte Dixon

  • 16. 
    In this case it was established that standing should be a formality in the permission stage and the whole case should be considered when granting standing - including the merits of the challenge.
    • A. 

      Fleet Street Casuals

    • B. 

      Ex parte World Development Movement

    • C. 

      Ex parte Rose Theatre

  • 17. 
    The definition of "sufficient interest" in accordance with _____ is: "Victim or potential victim of the act"
    • A. 

      Human Rights Act 1998

    • B. 

      European Convention on Human Rights

    • C. 

      Senior Courts Act

  • 18. 
    If you win your Judicial Review claim, the remedies can be one of the following; Quashing order; Prohibiting order; Mandatory order; Declaration; Injunction; Damages.
  •  
  • But this is completely at the courts discretion, they don't have to give any remedy at all.
  • A. 

    True

  • B. 

    False

  • 19. 
    Ouster Clauses: this case interpreted the wording of an ouster clause in such a way that it was not relevant for legal errors. This raised awareness of the attitudes of the courts to ouster clauses.
    • A. 

      Rose Theatre Trust

    • B. 

      Anisminic

    • C. 

      Smith v East Elloe

  • 20. 
    Partial ouster clauses may be accepted. Very strict time limits, which case?
    • A. 

      Smith v East Elloe

    • B. 

      Anisminic

    • C. 

      Padfield