Judicial review cases

Question 1

NFSSB

Answer 1

FACTS

• Fleet Street Newspapers avoided paying tax for temporary workers.

STANDING

• Lord Wilberforce: consider the powers of the respondent; the plaintiff’s position in relation to those powers; and the legal and factual context (including merits).
• Tax agreements are confidential so no sufficient interest was found.

Question 2

Greenpeace (no.2)

Answer 2

FACTS

• Environmental pressure group sought to challenge the decision to allow a reprocessing plant to open.

STANDING

• The group was granted standing: “experience in the matter” and “access to experts” meant they could mount a well-argued challenge.

Question 3

World Development Movement

Answer 3

FACTS

• The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Foreign Secretary to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam.

STANDING

• The group was granted standing: Rose LJ spoke in particular of the public interest and the “importance of vindicating the rule of law”

IMPROPER PURPOSES

• The Foreign Secretary had acted unlawfully on the grounds that legislation only empowered him to allocate funds to economically sound projects.

Question 4

Anisminic

Answer 4

FACTS

• The Foreign Compensation Act 1950 allowed recovery of compensation for abandoned items in Egypt.
• Anisminic’s claim for statutory compensation failed.

ERROR OF LAW

• The tribunal had misconstrued the legislation (the term “successor in title”). There had been an error of law.
• Established the collateral fact doctrine: any mistake of law will make the decision a nullity.

IMMUNITY

• Section 4(4) prevented the decision from being reviewable (“ouster clause”).
• The ouster clause exempting the determination from legal review did not apply, as there was no valid determination in the first place.

Question 5

Page

Answer 5

FACTS

• A university lecturer was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

ERROR OF LAW

• Where it is not the ordinary law of the land, but special internal rules governing a non-governmental institution, there will be no grounds for review.

Question 6

Racal

Answer 6

FACTS

• A High Court judge had refused to make an order under Companies Act authorising the inspection of a company’s books or papers.

ERROR OF LAW / IMMUNITY

• The Act said that the decision of the High Court judge ‘is not appealable’.
• There was no right of appeal under the Act from the High Court judges decision either on the facts or on the law.

Question 7

A

Answer 7

FACTS

• A’s claim for compensation in respect of alleged assault was refused by the CICB.

ERROR OF FACT

• A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence.
• The decision was quashed for material error of fact.

Question 8

E

Answer 8

FACTS

• E’s claim for asylum was refused by the Tribunal.

ERROR OF FACT

• There was a mistake of fact. There are four conditions to the finding of a mistake of fact: the mistake must be as to an existing fact; the existence of the fact must be uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the claimant should not have been responsible; the mistake must have been material to the decision.

Question 9

Khawaja

Answer 9

FACTS

• A statute allowed discretion to detain/deport ‘illegal entrants’.
• The appellants were detained - but they contended that they were not illegal entrants.

ERROR OF FACT

• There had been an error of fact.
• The correctness standard was applied on the grounds that a fundamental right to liberty was at stake (increasing intensity)

Question 10

Croyden

Answer 10

FACTS

• There was a duty to accommodate if there was a ‘child in need’.
• The local authority claimed that the claimants were not ‘children’.

CORRECTNESS / RATIONALITY

• The ‘in need’ question - this was a value judgment and thus the rationality/reasonableness review applied.
• The ‘child’ question - this was an objective, right or wrong answer; and thus the correctness review.

Question 11

Doody

Answer 11

FACTS

• The tariff given to the plaintiff, convicted of murder, was higher than the judge had recommended.

REASONS

• There was no general duty to give reasons.
• However, where the plaintiff is in no position to represent himself, a duty is implied.

Question 12

Lonrho

Answer 12

FACTS

• L appealed against the decision not to publish a Serious Fraud Office report.

REASONS

• There was no duty to give reasons for decision.

Question 13

Institute of Dental Surgery

Answer 13

FACTS

• Ranking of institutions in order to allocate research grants.
• The Institute appealed against their ranking at level 2.

REASONS

• On the facts, there was nothing inexplicable about the decision itself which might have obliged the Council to furnish reasons.
• However, common law fairness may sometimes imply a duty to give reasons.

Question 14

Hadjianastassiou

Answer 14

REASONS

• Art. 6 of the ECHR implies a duty to give reasons.

Question 15

McInnes

Answer 15

FACTS

• A boxing manager was refused a license.

REASONS

• There was no duty to give reasons for the decision.

HEARINGS

• There was no duty to give him an oral hearing - no rights were being infringed upon giving an honest, unbiased decision.

Question 16

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 16

FACTS

• The plaintiff was dismissed following criminal proceedings brought against him.

HEARINGS

• There had been a violation of natural justice.
• Lord Morris of Borth-y-gest: it is essential to have an opportunity to defend yourself.

Question 17

Pinochet (no.2)

Answer 17

FACTS

• Lord Hoffmann failed to declare links with Amnesty International on the previous Pinochet judgment.

BIAS

• The decision was set aside on the possibility of bias.
• It must demonstrated that the decision-maker had (i) a strong non-financial interest in outcome; and (ii) a close relationship with the parties.

Question 18

Dimes

Answer 18

FACTS

• Lord Cottenham LC granted relief to respondent company; but he also held shares in the company.

BIAS

• The decision was set aside - justice had to be seen to be done.

Question 19

Porter v Magill

Answer 19

BIAS

• “Would the circumstances of the case lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias?”

Question 20

Gillies

Answer 20

FACTS

• A GP was both a member of Disability Appeal Tribunal and an advisor to the Benefits Agency.

BIAS

• The fair-minded and informed observer test involves considering: (i) that the observer has access to facts known by the public; (ii) that he be not complacent; nor (iii) unduly sensitive.

Question 21

Island Farm

Answer 21

FACTS

• Candidates in an election campaigned against the sale of land. When they later won the election, they refused the sale.

BIAS

• The council’s decision was upheld because a line must be drawn between pre-determination and predisposition.
• All the council had done here, was that they had had a predisposition against the sale of the land, rather than having a closed mind.
• There was nothing to suggest that the council had not been prepared to consider other considerations.

Question 22

Lloyd v McMahon

Answer 22

FACTS

• An auditor in an investigation was allowed written submission but not an oral hearing.

HEARINGS

• It was held on the facts that an oral hearing was not legally required. The case lent itself to written representations.

Question 23

Barnard

Answer 23

FACTS

• Parliament had delegated disciplinary powers to the Board, who, in turn, sub-delegated to a manager.

DELEGATION

• The delegation by the London Dock Labour Board, a statutory body, of its disciplinary functions to a port manager, was unlawful.

Question 24

Carltona

Answer 24

FACTS

• The 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an official within the Ministry of Works and Planning.

DELEGATION

• The action of the official was not a delegated act; it was the act of the Minister.
• A minister could speak through the alter ego of a civil servant in an affidavit.

Question 25

Oladehinde

Answer 25

FACTS

• The Secretary of State delegated the decision regarding deportation to a Senior Executive Officer.

DELEGATION

• It was impractical for the Secretary of State to investigate each case of deportation himself.

Question 26

Lavendar

Answer 26

FACTS

• There was an application to extract gravel.
• The legislation held that it was the Housing Minister who had the power to decide.

DELEGATION

• The Housing Minister developed a policy of consulting the Agricultural Minister.
• This produced de facto the effect that the Minister had a veto power: the power had shifted completely.
• This was unlawful delegation.

Question 27

British Oxygen

Answer 27

FACTS

• The minister developed a policy of refusing grants for machines < £25.

FETTERING DISCRETION

• It was held that a policy being applied strictly was lawful as long as the minister remained willing to consider a departure from the policy in exceptional circumstances.
• A policy must nonetheless be published, accessible and explanatory (Nzolameso).

Question 28

Coughlan

Answer 28

FACTS

• The Authority had made several representations to C that she would be able to live out her days in Mardon House.
• Subsequently, the Health Authority decided to shut the facility down as the cost of operating it was becoming excessive.

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

• The promise to the patients had created a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit, the frustration of which would be so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power.

Question 29

Mandalia

Answer 29

FACTS

• The plaintiffs applied for a visa-extension application.
• They were not required to submit certain information according to a policy - however, they were ignorant of the policy at relevant time.

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

• One cannot expect what on is unaware of.

FREE-STANDING

• It was held that the government is under a requirement to act in accordance with its own policies.

Question 30

Campbell

Answer 30

FACTS

• The authority had the power to purchase land for city improvements.
• The Council bought more land than necessary
• The council thus decided to sell the surplus of the land to fund a separate scheme.

IMPROPER PURPOSES

• The decision was unlawful.
• The power to purchase land was for the making of improvements: it was not a power to raise revenue.

Question 31

Padfield

Answer 31

FACTS

• There was a complaint regarding the payment of milk producers.
• The Minister declined to refer the matter to a committee under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 s.19(3)(b).

IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

• The decision was unlawful for the Minister’s purported reasons were irrelevant.

Question 32

CREEDNZ

Answer 32

FACTS

• There was a power to determine a tariff period.
• There was evidence that showed that the authority took account of public opinion.

IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

• It was held that the public opinion was irrelevant.
• In deciding the minimum tariff power, the minister was exercising a judicial function - and a judge should never consider public opinion.

Question 33

Wolverhampton

Answer 33

FACTS

• Wolverhampton City Council approved in principle a compulsory purchase order of land owned by Sainsbury’s to facilitate a development of the site by Tesco.

IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

• The decision was quashed. The Council should not have considered the irrelevant factor of Tesco’s financial benefit.

Question 34

Wednesbury

Answer 34

Is the decision “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it?”

Question 35

Daly

Answer 35

FACTS

• Prisoners could not be present whilst their mail was searched.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The policy was disproportionate. There was a difference between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality.

Question 36

Farrakhan

Answer 36

FACTS

• The plaintiff was dined his request on the grounds that he had anti-semitic and racially divisive views.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The exclusion was proportionate, with sufficient reasons.

Question 37

Alconbury

Answer 37

FACTS

• The SSETR made decisions by a certain process.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The process was incompatible with art. 6(1)

Question 38

Denbigh High School

Answer 38

FACTS

• The full Islamic dress was considered not consistent with the school uniform.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The interference was proportionate.

Question 39

Roth

Answer 39

FACTS

• There was a system of fining lorry drivers with illegal immigrants.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The system was disproportionate.

Question 40

Wright

Answer 40

FACTS

• Care workers were placed on a list as unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults.

PROPORTIONALITY

• The procedure was disproportionate, it did not meet art. 6(1).