Judicial Review Part 3 Flashcards
What issue arose from amenability in 1990s?
The issue mentioned is that the promise of amenability started to crack in the 1990s, and it continues to be a contemporary problem.
This refers to the challenges and difficulties in applying amenability principles to certain bodies and individuals.
R v Chief Rabbi, ex parte Wachmann [1993]
R v Chief Rabbi, ex parte Wachmann [1993]?
This case raises questions about the amenability of religious bodies and their decision-making processes to legal review.
It demonstrates the tension between the autonomy of religious institutions and the concept of amenability.
What does the case R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] address?
The case deals with the issue of amenability in the context of sports disciplinary committees.
It explores the extent to which private bodies, like the Jockey Club, are subject to legal scrutiny and judicial review.
What is the example of a contemporary problem in amenability?
The case R v Servite Houses & Wandsworth ex parte Goldsmith (2001) illustrates a contemporary problem with amenability.
It involves the question of whether a housing association’s decisions regarding housing allocations are amenable to judicial review, highlighting the challenges in applying amenability to private bodies.
According to Tom Hickman, who can afford judicial review?
Very deep pockets: High net worth individuals, successful companies, and public authorities challenging central government decisions.
Professionals with insurance: Regulated professionals (e.g., financial advisers, doctors, dentists) challenging disciplinary decisions.
Individuals, companies, and organizations with costs protection.
Simple 2 hour hearing: £8000-£12000
Limited affordability may restrict access to judicial review…
for certain individuals and organisations
What are the mechanisms for costs protection in judicial review cases?
Legal Aid: Government-funded program providing financial assistance for eligible individuals who cannot afford legal representation.
Cost Capping Orders: Court orders that limit the claimant’s liability for costs if they lose the case, preventing excessive financial burden.
What is legal aid in the context of judicial review?
A government-funded program that offers financial assistance to eligible individuals who cannot afford legal representation in judicial review cases. It covers legal fees and related expenses.
What are cost capping orders in judicial review?
Court orders that impose a limit on the amount of costs a claimant is liable to pay if they lose the judicial review case. They aim to protect individuals from excessive financial risk and ensure access to justice.
What are ousters in the context of administrative actions?
Ousters refer to provisions in legislation that aim to limit or exclude the jurisdiction of courts to review administrative decisions, thereby restricting individuals’ ability to challenge those actions in court.
What is the significance of the Anisminic case?
In the case of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969], the House of Lords held that even if an ouster clause is present, courts can still review the legality of an administrative decision if there has been an error of law. This decision exemplifies the courts’ commitment to maintaining their jurisdiction and preventing ousters from completely excluding their supervisory role.
What are the Jackson dicta in relation to ouster clauses?
The Jackson dicta refer to statements made in the case of R v Jackson [2005] UKHL 56 that were criticized by Lord Bingham for being unrelated to the case’s issues, lacking legal basis or reasoning.
How are certain cases described as “aberrations” in relation to ouster clauses?
Some cases, including the Jackson dicta, are considered “aberrations” according to Gordon’s perspective. This means that they are viewed as exceptions rather than a denial of parliamentary sovereignty, suggesting they should not be seen as undermining the authority of Parliament.
What was the impact of the Anisminic case on ouster clauses?
The Anisminic case held that even if an ouster clause is present, courts can still review administrative decisions based on errors of law. This raised the question of whether Parliament can provide for ouster clauses that completely exclude judicial review in cases of legal errors.
What was Lord Carnwath’s stance on ouster clauses in the R (Privacy International) v IPT [2019] UKSC 22 case?
Lord Carnwath argued against giving binding effect to a clause that completely excludes the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction (role in overseeing and reviewing decisions made by public authorities) to review a decision. Essentially, his stance suggests that there are limits to the effectiveness of laws that try to prevent the court from reviewing certain matters.
