JR - Preliminaries Flashcards
What are the 5 elements for a valid JR action?
STAPO Standing Time Amenability Procedural exclusivity Ouster clauses
S31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981
Must have sufficient interest
Fleet Casuals
- Claimant must have sufficient interest.
- Merits and standing considered as 1 issue
- Vexatious claims will be dismissed
- 2 stage process;
a. Initial permission stage - is there a prima facie case - is there standing
b. Respondent can contest standing and substantive merits of case considered
Ex p Rose Trust Theatre
If no-one has standing within the group, and the group is newly formed, then sheer weight of numbers does not mean there is sufficient interest and standing
Ex p Greenpeace
Pressure group will have standing if one of the members has standing and pressure group has expertise to bring claim
Ex P World Development Movement
A pressure group will have standing if it has expertise, there is public interest and there is a strong claim (also issue here that no-one else would bring claim, and there was RoL issue at stake)
Equal Opportunites v SSE
If the pressure group is established and respected then if it has as its specific role the challenging of a particular category of decisions, then if this category is concerned they will have standing
Ex p Venables
If an individual has sufficient interest then they will have standing. Defendants in trial had standing as they were being sentenced
Ex p Rees-Mogg
Allowed standing due to sincere concern. He had written frequent editorials on the subject so was allowed standing
Ex p Dixon
Allowed standing as the purpose of JR is to right wrongs, and this is what he was attempting
R (Bulger) v SSHD
Jamie Bulger’s father did not have standing as the only parties to have standing in a criminal trial are the Crown and the defendants
GCHQ
If the body is obviously public then amenable to JR
Datafin
If private body performs otherwise public function it is amenable to JR
R v Bar Council ex p Percival
Bar council function would be performed by government if not private body therefore amenable to JR
R v FA ex p Football League
Sporting bodies not amenable to JR
R v Chief Rabbi ex p Wachmann
Religious bodies not amenable to JR
Contracting out
Where a public body contracts out function to private body if there is statute which extends to that function then the private body is amenable to JR
Ex p Goldsmith
Private company providing care for the elderly was not amenable as no statute covering it, only privately contracted
R v Pertnerships in Care
Private body changed its function to treat patients for mental illness. This is a fucntion covered by statute so was no longer only private body, as was covered by statute so was amenable to JR
McClaren v Home Office
A public body can act in a private way, and so not be amenable to JR (Prison employment contracts)
Claim must be brought within 3 months
Part 54.5(1) Civil Procedure Rules
Procedural exclusivity
Idea that a private claim should be brought in private manner, and public in public manner. Can’t bring private claim for JR, can’t bring public claim in private manner
O’Reiley v Mackman
Public law issue brought in JR. Private law issue brought in private manner
Lowry
Procedural exclusivity relaxed in pursuit of expeditious and cost effective procedure. Allow a public claim in JR with private elements
Ouster Clauses
Parliament will sometimes include a clause excluding JR from the act.
Jackson
Courts hate ouster clauses infringement of separation of powers, checks and balances etc
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation
Court afforded themselves a wide interpretative licence, so they could effectively disapply an exclusion clause
R v Home Secretary ex p Al Fayed
Ouster clause disapplied
Smith v East Elloe RDC
Partial ouster clauses permitted by the courts
