Judicial Review Principles And Procedures! Trivia Quiz
-
The role of Judicial Review is to determine the exercise of power, granted by statute, of... Who?
-
Public Bodies
-
Private Industries
-
Any organisation, public or private.
-
About This Quiz
This quiz will cover the principles, cases, and legislation relevant to Judicial Review Standing and Ouster Clauses.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
What is Judicial Review interested in?
-
The merits of the decision made
-
The legality decision making process
-
The neglect of fundamental human rights
Correct Answer
A. The legality decision making processExplanation
Judicial Review is interested in examining the legality of the decision-making process. It focuses on ensuring that the decisions made by government bodies or public officials are made within the confines of the law, following proper procedures and adhering to the principles of fairness and justice. Judicial Review does not primarily concern itself with the merits or quality of the decision itself, but rather with the legality and procedural aspects of the decision-making process.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
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?
-
Public Order Act
-
Parliament Act
-
Civil Procedure Rules
Correct Answer
A. Civil Procedure RulesExplanation
The Civil Procedure Rules set out the procedure for applying for Judicial Review. Judicial Review is a legal process through which individuals can challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. It allows individuals to seek a review of the decision-making process, focusing on its legality rather than the merits of the decision itself. The Civil Procedure Rules provide the guidelines and steps to follow when applying for Judicial Review, ensuring a fair and consistent process for all parties involved.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
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.
-
Ex parte Aga Khan
-
Ex parte Wachmann
-
Fleet Street Casuals
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte Aga KhanExplanation
The correct answer is "ex parte Aga Khan." In this case, it was argued that the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club, although a private company, regulates significant national activity. However, the court held that the powers of the committee derive from a contract and not from statute. Therefore, the committee was found to be exercising private rights and not performing public functions. This case establishes the principle that even if an organization regulates a national activity, it may still be considered a private entity if its powers are derived from a contract rather than from statute.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
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.
-
Ex parte Aga Khan
-
Ex parte Wachmann
-
Anisminic
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte WachmannExplanation
The given answer, "ex parte Wachmann," is the correct answer because it refers to a relevant legal case that supports the explanation provided. In the case of ex parte Wachmann, it was held that a body or organization cannot be considered a public body if it does not have statutory powers and penalties backed by the government. Therefore, since the Chief Rabbi's regulation did not have government support, the commission he set up to investigate the Rabbi's case was not considered a public body. This explanation aligns with the facts presented in the question.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
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.
-
Fleet Street Casuals
-
Ex parte World Development Movement
-
Ex parte Rose Theatre
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte World Development MovementExplanation
The correct answer is "ex parte World Development Movement". 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. This suggests that the World Development Movement successfully argued for standing in a case where it was initially questioned, and the court recognized that the merits of their challenge should be taken into account when determining standing.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
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?
-
Legality principle
-
Principle of Fair Justice
-
Nature of Power Principle
Correct Answer
A. Legality principleExplanation
The principle referred to in the passage is the Legality principle. This principle states that the exercise of power by a public body must be legal and in accordance with the law. It ensures that laws are clear, ascertainable, and non-retrospective, and that public bodies do not abuse their power. Judicial review is the main mechanism for upholding this principle, as it allows the courts to review the legality of the exercise of power by public bodies.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
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?
-
Ex parte Aga Khan
-
Raz
-
Datafin
Correct Answer
A. DatafinExplanation
The correct answer is Datafin. Datafin is the case that held that private bodies exercising public functions may be amenable to Judicial Review (JR). This means that even though a body is not a public body, if it exercises powers derived from statute, it can still be subject to JR. The case of Datafin expanded the scope of JR to include private bodies in certain circumstances, ensuring that the exercise of discretionary powers by these bodies is also supervised.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
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?
-
Fleet Street Casuals
-
Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust
-
Ex parte Greenpeace
Correct Answer
A. Fleet Street CasualsExplanation
The correct answer is Fleet Street Casuals. This case marked the beginning of a more liberal approach to judicial review. It involved the decision of the inland revenue to not pursue unpaid tax from workers as long as they paid the tax in the future. This case relaxed the rules of locus standi (standing) by allowing consideration of the wrongs committed by public bodies rather than focusing solely on the rights of private individuals.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
What is the first "Stage" of judicial review?
-
Application
-
Permission
-
Substantive Hearing
Correct Answer
A. PermissionExplanation
The first stage of judicial review is "Permission." In this stage, the court determines whether the claimant has a valid case that merits further consideration. The court evaluates the claimant's application and decides whether there are grounds for a judicial review to proceed. If permission is granted, the case moves on to the next stage, which is the substantive hearing.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
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.
-
Ex parte McCarthy & Stone
-
Rose Theatre Trust
-
Dixon Case
Correct Answer
A. Rose Theatre TrustExplanation
The correct answer is Rose Theatre Trust. The Rose Theatre Trust case specifically deals with the interest of individuals, in this case, a group of archaeologists who are raising the issue. It focuses on their special interest rather than the illegality of the conduct.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
This case established that the best placed challenger is to be considered to have sufficient interest thus granted standing.
-
Ex parte Greenpeace
-
Ex parte Rees Mogg
-
Ex parte Dixon
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte GreenpeaceExplanation
This case established the principle that the best placed challenger, in this case, Greenpeace, is considered to have sufficient interest and is granted standing. In other words, Greenpeace had a strong enough connection to the issue at hand to be allowed to participate in the legal proceedings. This ruling likely set a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
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.
-
Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust
-
Ex parte Greenpeace
-
Ex parte Smedley
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte SmedleyExplanation
The correct answer is ex parte Smedley. This case, although not decided in favor of the claimant, utilized the relaxed rules from Fleet Street Casuals to grant standing and allow the case to proceed to the substantive hearing. The case was specifically related to the Treasury funding the European Community budget.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
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?
-
Senior Courts Act
-
Civil Procedure Rules
-
Administration of Justice Act
Correct Answer
A. Senior Courts ActExplanation
The Senior Courts Act grants standing to applicants who have "sufficient interest" in the matter. This means that individuals or parties who can demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the case are eligible to participate in the proceedings. The Act aims to encourage interaction and ensure that only those with a genuine stake in the matter are allowed to be involved in the litigation process.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
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?
-
Dixon Case
-
Ex parte Aga Khan
-
Ex parte TVNI Ltd
Correct Answer
A. Ex parte TVNI LtdExplanation
The case of ex parte TVNI Ltd established the principle that the time limit for the Permission Stage of Judicial Review is "PROMPT and in any event LESS THAN THREE MONTHS".Rate this question:
-
- 16.
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?
-
Senior Courts Act
-
Rules of the Supreme Court
-
Common law principle
Correct Answer
A. Rules of the Supreme CourtExplanation
The older rules were established by the Rules of the Supreme Court.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Sep 26, 2024 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Sep 26, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 07, 2011Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top