Illegality Flashcards

1
Q

Datafin

A

Private bodies a governmental function (Datafin) Test Would a public body take its place? -> yes it’s a private body – public function - Amenability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Ex P percival

A

Regulatory bodies are preforming governmental functions - Amenability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Ex P aga Khan

A

Npt sporting regulations- Amenability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Ex P Wachman

A

Not religious associations - Amenability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

O’Reilly v Mackman

A

The exclusive principle: you cannot assert a public law right against a public body with a private law action; the judicial review process exists to ensure that public bodies are protected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Fleet street cauals

A

Standing
To have standing in Judicial Review, you must be able to distinguish yourself from all others who can claim an interest. Must have sufficient interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Ex P venebles

A

Standing occurs for individuals who are directly effected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rees Mogg

A

Standing - Lord Rees Mogg, individual was not affected by EU’s acceptance into the EU

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

RE Bulger

A

Standing - Father of a son that died was not directly effected in the sentencing of his killer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Rose theatre

A

Incorporation does not increase standing; if no individual member has standing, the group will not have standing
Although a legal or financial interest is not required, not every person can enforce a public duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Greenpeace

A

Standing - Reputation, expertise, membership size

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

World Development movement

A

group of standing o -> Importance of the issue: Merits, ROL at stake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Anisminic

A

No effect if not clear and precise, Ignore full ouster clause - Ouster Clause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Elloe

A

Partial that effect time limits allowed - Ouster Clause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

AG v Fulham

A

Simple Illegality -> Decision maker acts outside the act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Westminister v London NW

A

Actions that are necessary, incidental does not count

17
Q

Ex P Simms

A

Parliament can not legistlate inconsistent with Constitutional rights
Simms convicted or murder and claimed innocence. Received help from journalists and was interviewed on several occasions. Blanket ban by HS to use information from prisoners. Court held the ban to be unlawful

18
Q

Witham

A

Excessively high fees an example of Ultra vires

19
Q

AG v Fulham

A

Ultra vires
Does it “come within the four corners of the act”?
A local authority had the power to provide washhouses for residents to wash their clothes. This was held not to empower it to set up a laundry service in which residents paid employees of the authority to wash their clothes for them.
The court argued Fulham Corporation had acted ultra vires

20
Q

Anisminic

A

Foundations used by decision maker are wrong

21
Q

Page

A

not all errors of law are reviewable only those where decision maker makes mistake as to the nature of his decision making

22
Q

South Yorkshire transport

A

When power granted is capable of wide interpretation - Error of Law

23
Q

Ex P Khawaja

A

Precedent fact:
The minister- home secretary had the power to deport illegal immigrants- they had to get the fact they were an illegal immigrant right
Precedent fact is something you need to get right FIRST before you make a decision
Facts which are process led as the next part of the decision depends on getting the fact right

24
Q

Coleen Properties

A

No evidence:
Tower Hamlets were clearing some land
Coleen Properties owned a property on that street
Marked for destruction even though it was a perfectly good property
Surveyors said that is in good condition
Tower hamlets said it is on a couple of bad streets- we are clearing it
They had no evidence for their decision- that was a breach
They could not exercise their decision because they hadn’t shown evidence for their decision

25
Q

Mistake of an established fact

A

R v CICB

26
Q

Ex P Fewings

A

Improper purpose -> Power granted by the statute must use the purpose intended by the statute. Examples of improper purpose in the cases- a. Using power to enforce ethical views (Ex P Fewings)

27
Q

Padfield v MoA

A

Refusing to exercise a discretionary power

28
Q

Congreve

A

Revocation of TV licensces to those who had purchased them early

29
Q

Bromley LBC v Greater London Counc

A

Subsidizing transport with council money

30
Q

Fire Brigaides UnioN

A

Retention (Fettering) of discretion -> Must not fetter his discretion by refusing to exercise it
a. Amount to a blanket ban (R v NW Lancashire)
Be too inflexible thuse keep mind Ajar (Ex P Brent

31
Q

examples of fettring of discression

A

Luton BC: Cases must be considered on an individual basis
British oxygen: must be evdidence of eventuality
Collymore: Policy must be enforced genuinely and with due consideration for each application

32
Q

Lavender

A

Authority can not be delegated

33
Q

Cartona Principle

A

unless it happens I the ministers own dept

34
Q

Doody

A

Where fundamental issue is at stake not below Jr Minister

35
Q

DPP v Shaw

A

Where delegation is implied or authorized by statute

36
Q

Ex P fewings

A

Where delegation is implied or authorized by statute

37
Q

Examples of Relevant and irrelevant consideration

A

o Roberts v Hopwood: Failure to consider the effects of increasing public sector workers wages on taxpayer rather than considering the social implications
o Bromley v GLC: Authprity did not take relevant consideration of ordinary buisness principles
o Venebles: Home secretary took public clamour into account, which was a irrelevant consideration
o Barry: resouces available to a decision-maker can be relevant