Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonably

Question 1

The main Wednesbury case

Answer 1

Associated Provincial Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)

Question 2

Ex Parte Maxwell (1997)

Answer 2

“Applicant has a mountain to climb”

“so unreasonable as to warrant interference to jump off the page at you”

Question 3

Inputs

Answer 3

Law/Fact unless WU
Discretionary Relevant Considerations subject to WU
The weight attached to relevant considerations

Question 4

Ex Parte Hook (1976)

Answer 4

His licence for market trading was taken away for urinating on the street
This was an infringement of natural justice

Question 5

Light Touch Review: Economic Policy Case

Answer 5

Ex parte Notinghamshire County Council (1986)
Local authorities argued they weren’t allocate enough money in their budgets
Lord Scarman
Politically sensitive, not for judges to interfere

Question 6

Light Touch Review: National Defence Case

Answer 6

Ex parte: Cheblak (1991)
Bedlam LJ this is a power conferred to the Home Secretary
During the Gulf War deported a peace activist for being a national security threat

Question 7

R v SoS for the Home Department (2001)

Answer 7

Assumption of safe countries making it harder for asylum seekers
Argument that this logic is WU

Question 8

Champion v Chief Constable of Gwent Constabulary (1998)

Answer 8

Was held not to be WU that a police officer was declined from sitting on any interview boards