Judicial Review: Absence Of Power

Question 1

AG v Fulham Corporation 1921

Answer 1

Literal Interpretation

• They were allowed to make ‘Wash-Houses’ not ‘Wash-Rooms’
• Matter of statutory interpretation
• Literal interpretation meant that it couldn’t be used as a laundrette

Question 2

Lees v Secretary of State for Social Services [1985]

Answer 2

Literal interpretation

• Blind Women was unable to benefit from Mobility Allowance
• For people who were ‘‘unable to walk unaided’’
• She can walk just not in a straight line
• HOL case

Question 3

Ex Parte Shine [1975]

Answer 3

Purposive Interpretation

• Student in accommodation
• Claimed full welfare benefit as a householder
• Lord Denning ‘they should interpret.. the Act in a broad and reasonable way according to the spirit and not the letter’
• He lost on a purposive Interpretation

Question 4

DPP v Bull [1994]

Answer 4

Having regard to the whole statute

• The meaning of ‘’ common prostitute ‘’ could not include a man
• This was referred to elsewhere in the Act

Question 5

Ex Parte Connick [1994]

Answer 5

Wrong legal test

• Social fund for people to apply for money
• Medical items were excluded
• Wrong test on how to classify medical item used; used as a result of a medical problem
• Mr Justice Hidden criticised this, as therefore a bucket could be considered a medical item
• Made an error of law

Question 6

Pepper v Hart [1993]

Answer 6

Pepper v Hart [1993]

• Teachers were able to send their children to their school for a discounted price
• Government wanted to tax the difference between the standard price and the discounted price
• Teachers argued that it should only be the incremental/ marginal cost taxed
• Lord Browne-Wilkinson went against not looking at Hansard when:

A) text ambiguous/ or leads to an absurdity
B) a minister talks about this in a statement
C) the effect of the statement is clear

Question 7

Anisminic [1969]

Answer 7

Compensation after the abandonment of military equipment in Egypt

It’s for the courts to address matters of law not matters of fact

Question 8

Ex Parte Gibb v Others [1995]

Answer 8

• Definition of gypsies under s6 Caravan Sites Act 1968
• ‘adequate accommodation for gypsies’
• Were Mr Gibbs and his friends Gypsies
• Since the court had adopted the correct legal test, it was for the council to determine whether on that basis they met the definition

Question 9

Ex Parte A. E. U

Answer 9

• Entitlement to Industrial Injuries Benefit
• Got run over whilst on his smoking break
• His benefits were reigned as the injury ‘‘did not arise out of or in the course of his employment’’
• LJ Davies ‘I deprecate this attempt to magnify or inflate questions of fact into questions of law’’

Question 10

Ex Parte Pulhofer [1986]

Answer 10

• Councils obligation to provide suitable accommodation to those that are homeless
• Whether the guest house constituted accommodation?
• The meaning of accommodation
• The courts decided this was a matter of fact

Lord Brightman ‘‘fact involves a broad spectrum ranging from the obvious to the debatable, to the just conceivable, it is he duty of the court to leave the decision of that fact to the public body’’

Question 11

Ex Parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993]

Answer 11

• Merger of a bus company in South Yorkshire
• Monopolies and Mergers Commission were only to investigate a ‘substantial part of the UK’
• What is the meaning of substantial?
• Matter of fact
• Lord Mustill said the court will only intervene when it is Wednesbury Unreasonable
• Or the wrong legal test has been applied (ex Parte Connick)

Question 12

White &a Collins v Minister for Health [1939]

Answer 12

Precedent Fact

• Compulsory purchase of land which was not part of a park
• Negative statutory construction
• As it was part of the park, they were in excess of power

Question 13

Ex Parte Zamir [1980]

Answer 13

• Whether Zamir as an illegal entrant was a question of law or fact
• Decided it was a question of fact
• However they did not decide this was a precedent fact because of the practicalities of he court assessing this

Question 14

Ex Parte Khawaja [1984]

Answer 14

• Overruled Zamir
• Determining a illegal entrant was a precedent fact
• Lord Scarman: whilst in certain cases a fact might not be treated as a precedent fact for administrative considerations, when there is something so fundamental these outweigh those considerations

Question 15

Ex Parte Keegan (1995)

Answer 15

Fundamental factual error based on Wednesbury Unreasonableness

• Son in law decided to start charging his mother in law rent
• She applied for housing benefit
• This was refused on the grounds that she was not paying rent

Question 16

E & R v Secretary of State fro the Home adept (2004)

Answer 16

• E and R claims for asylum
• Consistent Factual Errors in the rejection of their asylum
• The CA held there was now a freestanding ground of unfairness resulting from misunderstanding or ignorance of a relevant fact
• This fact must have played a material pet in the Courts reasoning

Question 17

Montes & Anor v Secretary of State for Home Department (2004)

Answer 17

• Similar facts to E & R
• Emphasises the limitations of the E case
• the CA stressed that the ‘‘uncontentious and objectively verifiable’’ test in E was a ‘‘stringent test’’