Judicial Review Abuse of Power Flashcards
Padfield v Minister for Agriculture (1968)
Power must not be exercised for a purpose other than that which the power has conferred
No express provision
Objectives must be determined by construing the Act as a whole
Sydney Municipal Council v Campbell (1925)
There was an improper purpose exercised by the council compulsory purchasing land to benefit from the increased value in the land
‘for carrying out improvements in or remodelling the city’ ‘
Ex parte Times Newspaper (1986)
Express provision, to provide a “comprehensive and efficient library service”
The library manager supported the striking workers and therefore banned the Times Newspaper
The Council exercised improper purpose
Ex parte Fewings (1995)
Express provision ‘for the benefit, improvement or development of their area’
Deer Hunting was banned
Held that banning deer hunting could come under the express provision, however the action has to be linked to the statutory purpose
Lord Bingham - even if a particular motivation is covered by the statutory purpose, this may not be conclusive
Wheeler v Leicester City Council (1985)
Express provision “to promote…good relations of person of difference racial groups” (S71 Race Relations Act 1976)
Banning of an amateur rugby club who wanted to send players to Apartheid South Africa
Lord Templeman- This was an improper purpose because they were not acting unlawfully
Ex parte King (1991)
No express provision
Looking at the statute as a whole, and what its intentions were, the Council has acted for an improper purpose setting the pice of rent of stalls so high
Westminister Corporation v London and North Western Railway Company (1905)
Mixed purposes
Lavatory (lawful) /Underpass (unlawful)
Building the lavatory was the dominant purpose
Ex parte Shell
Boycotting SA
The council encouraging others to also boycott shell “substantially influenced” their actions
Therefore there was an improper purpose
Ex parte Goodwin (1998)
Determining whether the building was an off/license or garage
Took into account irrelevant considerations e.g. photographs, what people commonly new it as
LJ Laws- it should have been determined by the primary use by customers
Vasilou v SoS for Transport (1991)
Mandatory Relevant Consideration
The SoS needed to take into account the economic implications for traders by blocking the road
Luby v Newcastle- Under-Lyne Corporation (1964)
There was a “Margin of Appreciation” when setting rent
Luby v Newcastle- Under-Lyne Corporation (1964)
There was a “Margin of Appreciation” when setting rent
There was no consideration of peoples economic needs to pay
Diplock LJ argued that this was up to the discretion of the local authority
Tesco Stores Ltd v SoS for environment (1995)
Tesco’s promise to build a slip road to alleviate traffic
Lord Keith - ‘it is entirely for the decision maker to attribute to the relevant considerations such weight as he thinks fit, and the court will not interfere unless he has acted unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense’
