2) Illegality Flashcards
Fundamental principle of Administrative Law
A public body is not entitled to act in excess of its powers
Ultra Vires
Illegality as described in GCHQ
Decision maker must understand correctly that the law regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it.
Name the subcategories of Illegality
1) Simple Illegality (Ultra vires)
2) Errors of law
3) Errors of fact
4) Relevant and Irrelevant considerations
5) Improper purpose
6) Fettering discretion
7) Unlawful delegation
Simple Illegality
Ultra vires
eg Parking Steward arresting someone…
Attorney General v Fulham Corporation
Simple illegality
Local authority had the power to provide washhouses for residents.
But was not empowered to provide paid laundry services.
acted outside of the four corners of the Act
Westminster Corp v London & NE Railway
Intra vires
Will not have acted unlawfully if did something reasonably incidental to a power that they do have.
Power to build lavatories –> a power to build public lavatories.
Principle of legality
Presumption that Parliament did not intend to authorize the infringement of fundamental or constitutional rights without very specific statutory authorisation
Key cases to adopt the “legality” approach
R v SoS for Home Dept, ex parte Leech (No2)
R v SoS for Home Dept, ex parte Simms
R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham
R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham
Illegality
Parent Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set court fees at such high level that access to the courts was effectively denied.
Statutory Instrument setting fees = Ultra Vires
Error of Law - Key Case
Anisiminic - HoL ruled the Foreign Compensation Commission had misunderstood the rules of the compensation scheme that it was supposed to be implementing.
Error of Law
Extension of ultra vires
After Ansiminic, no longer only reviewable only as a question of jurisdiction.
Exceptions to the reviewability of errors of law
- Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision
- When the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules
- Where the power granted is couched in terms that are so imprecise, they are capable of multiple interpretations.
Exceptions to the reviewability of errors of law
Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision
Decisive means that but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.
Exceptions to reviewability of errors of law
When the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules
Courts are often unwilling to intervene with statutes of a university for instance.
Key Case: Ex parte Page
R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page
Case confirmed that….
Case confirmed that all errors of law are potentially reviewable;
Are courts willing to review decisions made by an inferior court?
Often courts are unwilling to review decisions made by inferior courts on the basis of an error of law where Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final
Will Courts review a decision made by a superior court on the basis of an error of law?
No, they will not entertatin an application for the judicial review of decisions such as that of the High Court
Re Racal Communications Ltd
Re Racal Communications Ltd
Will not entertain the judicial review of a Superior Court
Exceptions
Imprecise powers - Key Case
Error of law
ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd
HoL considered how to interpret the phrase “a substantial part of the United Kingdom”
* Substantial can accommodate a wide range of meanings.
* Differing decision makers may reach differing conclusions.
* Court should not intervene unless decision-makers conclusion was irrational
Court should not intervene if imprecise meaning - unless decision-makers conclusion was irrational
R(Forge Care Homes Ltd) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
Error in law
Health Board had misinterpreted s 49 of Health and Social Care Act 2001.
* Funding of residents in care homes
* Too restrictive an application, should have covered care provided by registered nurses. = An error in law.
What are the three types of errors of Fact that are susceptible to Judicial Review.
Precedent Facts
No evidence of Facts
Ignorance or Mistake of an Established Fact.
What are precedent facts?
When a decision makers power to decide on a particular matter (their jurisdiction) depends on making an initial finding of fact
Key cases relating of precedent facts?
- White and Colins v MoH
- ex parte Khawaja
White and Collins v Minister of Health
CoA held that it could review the LA decision to compulsorily purchase a piece of land - the land was already part of a park.