JR - Preliminaries

Question 1

What are the 5 elements for a valid JR action?

Answer 1

STAPO
Standing
Time
Amenability
Procedural exclusivity
Ouster clauses

Question 2

S31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981

Answer 2

Must have sufficient interest

Question 3

Fleet Casuals

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

Ex p Rose Trust Theatre

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Ex p Greenpeace

Answer 5

Pressure group will have standing if one of the members has standing and pressure group has expertise to bring claim

Question 6

Ex P World Development Movement

Answer 6

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)

Question 7

Equal Opportunites v SSE

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Ex p Venables

Answer 8

If an individual has sufficient interest then they will have standing. Defendants in trial had standing as they were being sentenced

Question 9

Ex p Rees-Mogg

Answer 9

Allowed standing due to sincere concern. He had written frequent editorials on the subject so was allowed standing

Question 10

Ex p Dixon

Answer 10

Allowed standing as the purpose of JR is to right wrongs, and this is what he was attempting

Question 11

R (Bulger) v SSHD

Answer 11

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

Question 12

GCHQ

Answer 12

If the body is obviously public then amenable to JR

Question 13

Datafin

Answer 13

If private body performs otherwise public function it is amenable to JR

Question 14

R v Bar Council ex p Percival

Answer 14

Bar council function would be performed by government if not private body therefore amenable to JR

Question 15

R v FA ex p Football League

Answer 15

Sporting bodies not amenable to JR

Question 16

R v Chief Rabbi ex p Wachmann

Answer 16

Religious bodies not amenable to JR

Question 17

Contracting out

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Ex p Goldsmith

Answer 18

Private company providing care for the elderly was not amenable as no statute covering it, only privately contracted

Question 19

R v Pertnerships in Care

Answer 19

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

Question 20

McClaren v Home Office

Answer 20

A public body can act in a private way, and so not be amenable to JR (Prison employment contracts)

Question 21

Claim must be brought within 3 months

Answer 21

Part 54.5(1) Civil Procedure Rules

Question 22

Procedural exclusivity

Answer 22

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

Question 23

O’Reiley v Mackman

Answer 23

Public law issue brought in JR. Private law issue brought in private manner

Question 24

Lowry

Answer 24

Procedural exclusivity relaxed in pursuit of expeditious and cost effective procedure. Allow a public claim in JR with private elements

Question 25

Ouster Clauses

Answer 25

Parliament will sometimes include a clause excluding JR from the act.

Question 26

Jackson

Answer 26

Courts hate ouster clauses infringement of separation of powers, checks and balances etc

Question 27

Anisminic v Foreign Compensation

Answer 27

Court afforded themselves a wide interpretative licence, so they could effectively disapply an exclusion clause

Question 28

R v Home Secretary ex p Al Fayed

Answer 28

Ouster clause disapplied

Question 29

Smith v East Elloe RDC

Answer 29

Partial ouster clauses permitted by the courts