Judicial Review Cases Flashcards
Is the defendant a public body
Datafin test
Nature of power of the body
YL v Birmingham city council
Does the body exercise public law functions
Procedural exclusivity
O’Reilly v Mackman
Does the claim raise public law issues
Exception to procedural exclusivity
Gillick v West Norfolk
If case raises both public and private law issues, have a choice between JR and PL proceedings
Does claimant have sufficient interest to bring a claim
s.31 SCA 1981
Is the claimant directly and adversely affected by the matter
The national federation of self-employed and small businesses
Does the claimant have sufficient interest to make a claim
When dealing with pressure groups seeing if they have sufficient interest
World Development Movement
Court may refuse if there’s been undue delay
S.31(6) SCA
Is the claimant within the time limit
Claimant must file claim promptly within a maximum of 3 months
Civil Procedure Rule 54.5
Complete ouster clauses
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission
Exclusion of judicial review
Held that partial ouster clause stated judicial review claim had to be brought within 6 weeks
Ostler
Exception to time limits
Must exhaust other options before bringing claim for JR
Preston
The case that held there are 3 grounds for review
CCSU
Without lawful authority
McCarthy v Stone
Illegality
Wrongful delegation
Vine
Illegality
Exceptions to wrongful delegation
Carltona
- Doesn’t apply to government ministers
Illegality
Exceptions to wrongful delegations
S101 LGA 1972
Lawful for councils to delegate to committees provided its done under guidelines
Illegality
Ferreting of discretion, Acting under the dictation of another
Lavender v Sons
Illegality
Ferreting of discretion, formulating a general policy as to the exercise of discretion
British Oxygen
Illegality
Improper/ unauthorised use of an Act
Congreve
Where a public body acts for ends not provided for by Parliament
Unauthorised purpose
Illegality
The decision will stand if the primary purpose was the proper one
LNWR
Dual purpose
Illegality
Did the authority pursue an unauthorised purpose which materially influenced the decision
ILEA
Dual purpose
Illegality
Taking an irrelevant factor into account
Padfield
Considerations
Illegality
Ignoring a relevant factor
Roberts
Considerations
Illegality
Errors in law
Anisminic
Illegality
Errors of fact
Khawaja
Illegality
Must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it
Wednesbury
Irrationality
So outrageous in its defiance and logic that no sensible person could have arrived at it
CCSU
Irrationality
It is possible for public authorities to fail the test
Wheeler v Leicester City Council
Irrationality
Courts will consider whether Parliament would have intended consequences of non-compliance to invalidate decision and render it unlawful
R v Soneji
Statutory procedures
Procedural impropriety
Consider whether there has been failure to substantially comply
Coney
Statutory procedures
Procedural impropriety
If requirement is mandatory the decision will be quashed
Bradbury
Statutory procedures
Procedural impropriety
Where an interest may lead to financial/pecuniary gain, this will be bias
Dimes
Direct Bias
Procedural impropriety
Where decision-maker is involved in promoting sane cause as claimant
Pinochet
Direct bias
Procedural impropriety
If bias is indirect, court must consider this test in order for the decision to be quashed
Porter v Magill
Indirect bias
Procedural impropriety
Second part of Porter v Magill test
Hook
How the decision would look to an observer
There’s a duty on decision makers to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides
Rice
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Claimants should know case and have right to reply
Fairmount
The right to a fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Claimant is entitled to fair hearing which is fair and reasonable in all circumstances
Lloyd v McChahon
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Concept of fairness is flexible and varies according to category of case
McInnes v Onslow-Fane
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Forfeiture cases
Ridge v Baldwin
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Procedural limited expectation
Asif Khan
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
Substantive legitimate expectation
Coughlan
Right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
There is no right to seek JR if decision is preliminary and not final
Lewis v Heffer
Limitations to right to a fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
There is no legal duty for public bodies to give reasons for their decision
Hasan
Limits to right to fair hearing
Procedural impropriety
