Judicial Review Flashcards
R v City Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Datafin
Panel were not technically a public body, but the court held that the panel’s activities were analogous to that of a public body. Court will usually look to the source of a body’s power to test for public function, but then it will be examined if their functions are analogous to that of a government body.
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club ex parte Aga Khan
Power of the club derived from contract, so was private law, not public. Club’s actions were not analogous to that of a public body and its decisions could not be judicially reviewed.
R v Lloyds of London
Decisions of an insurance broker related to private law, not public.
R v Servite Homes and Wandsworth, ex parte Goldsmith
Care home not exercising public function, based on contractual relationships, not amenable to judicial review.
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners
Challenge to decision to grant tax amnesty to print workers, court considered that the court must prevent abuse by busybodies and cranks, and the substance of the claim must be considered. In this case it was decided that one tax payer does not have sufficient interest in asking the court to investigate the tax affairs of another.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre
Number of factors were considered in relation to sufficient interest; does not necessarily mean financial or legal interest, the assertion of an interest does not mean that an interest actually exists, and thousands joining a campaign does not mean that sufficient interest exists.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace
Court held that it was in the public interest to allow Greenpeace, an organisation with other 400,000 members in the UK, to bring action against a decision to construct a nuclear power plant.
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement
Pressure group was granted standing on the basis of the public importance of the case and the longstanding nature of that organisation’s campaigning in the area.
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission
Parliament stipulated in the act creating the commission that it’s determinations could not be reviewed by the courts. Anisminic argued that because the FTC had made an error of law their decision was not a determination but instead a nullity. The court agreed and held that they could review nullities. They also allowed that judicial review can be ousted by clear words.
H Lavender & Sons v Ministry of Housing and Local Government
Unlawful delegation of discretion.
Carltona v Commissioner for Works
Courts recognise that ministers do delegate on a day to day basis, but this must happen for effective running of government. Carltona doctrine.
Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture
Concerning milk marketing scheme, complaints could be referred to a committee if the minister directed, he refused to refer a complaint in case it led to him having to change his policy, held that he had acted for reasons that were irrelevant, he had used his discretion in a manner contrary to the objects of the act.
Magill v Porter
Court’s role in determining the purpose of the statute and therefore finding that the minister’s decision was unlawful can lead to controversy, leads to suggestion that court has substituted its own decision for that of the minister.
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal
Lord Chancellor decided case involving a company in which he had shares, his decision was set aside.
R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet
Not just financial interests which matter, interests which are analogous to financial or proprietary interests can lead to automatic disqualifications - in this case Amnesty International were allowed to intervene in a case, but Lord Hoffmann was the director of their charitable arm, was analogous to a financial interest.