Judicial review cases Flashcards
1
Q
NFSSB
A
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.
2
Q
Greenpeace (no.2)
A
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.
3
Q
World Development Movement
A
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.
4
Q
Anisminic
A
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.
5
Q
Page
A
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.
6
Q
Racal
A
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.
7
Q
A
A
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.
8
Q
E
A
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.
9
Q
Khawaja
A
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)
10
Q
Croyden
A
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.
11
Q
Doody
A
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.
12
Q
Lonrho
A
FACTS
- L appealed against the decision not to publish a Serious Fraud Office report.
REASONS
- There was no duty to give reasons for decision.
13
Q
Institute of Dental Surgery
A
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.
14
Q
Hadjianastassiou
A
REASONS
- Art. 6 of the ECHR implies a duty to give reasons.
15
Q
McInnes
A
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.
16
Q
Ridge v Baldwin
A
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.
17
Q
Pinochet (no.2)
A
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.
18
Q
Dimes
A
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.
19
Q
Porter v Magill
A
BIAS
- “Would the circumstances of the case lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias?”
20
Q
Gillies
A
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.
21
Q
Island Farm
A
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.
22
Q
Lloyd v McMahon
A
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.
23
Q
Barnard
A
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.
24
Q
Carltona
A
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.
25
Q
Oladehinde
A
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.
26
Q
Lavendar
A
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.
27
Q
British Oxygen
A
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).
28
Q
Coughlan
A
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.
29
Q
Mandalia
A
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.
30
Q
Campbell
A
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.
31
Q
Padfield
A
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.
32
Q
CREEDNZ
A
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.
33
Q
Wolverhampton
A
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.
34
Q
Wednesbury
A
Is the decision “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it?”
35
Q
Daly
A
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.
36
Q
Farrakhan
A
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.
37
Q
Alconbury
A
FACTS
- The SSETR made decisions by a certain process.
PROPORTIONALITY
- The process was incompatible with art. 6(1)
38
Q
Denbigh High School
A
FACTS
- The full Islamic dress was considered not consistent with the school uniform.
PROPORTIONALITY
- The interference was proportionate.
39
Q
Roth
A
FACTS
- There was a system of fining lorry drivers with illegal immigrants.
PROPORTIONALITY
- The system was disproportionate.
40
Q
Wright
A
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).
