Procedural Impropriety Flashcards
Aylesbury Mushrooms
Failure to comply with statutory procedural requirements would invalidate the decision
R v Soneji
Focus on material problem to the decision - did Parliament intend that non-compliance with procedural requirement would result in the decision being invalid?
JN (Cameroon)
Focus on consequences to the decision
Heron
Minor irregularities in road signs did not invalidate penalty notice charges
Moseley
Requirement of consultation means ‘meaningful participation by those consulted’
Needed to be provided with outline of realistic alternatives to proposals and reasons for preferred policy
Ridge v Baldwin
Duty of fairness applies to all decision makers in all decisions
GCHQ
Duty to act fairly does not apply where concerns over national security exist
Ex parte Pegasus Holdings
Duty to act fairly does not apply in emergency cases where public safety demands urgent action
R v Cambridgeshire AHA ex parte B
Duty to act fairly does not apply in resource allocation cases
Durayappah
Level of duty depends on nature or status of the post, the circumstances leading to the decision and the sanction itself
Lloyd v McMahon
Duty to act fairly does not apply where claimant has waived their rights to fairness
Sliding scale - higher the loss = higher level of fairness
Type of body making decision
Type of decision being made
Regulatory decisions require higher duty of fairness than administrative decisions
Oral hearings not always required - writing will be required
Ex parte Tilling
Licence applications must be heard with a fair and unbiased mind
Liverpool Taxis
Licensing must be determined in an environment of fairness
McInnes v Onslow-Fanne
Factors to consider
Livelihood at stake
Application v forfeiture
Legitimate expectation
Abbey Mine v Coal Authority
Commercial matters do not require disclosure of other companies’ applications
R v Dunraven School, ex parte B
Must have notice of case against them
Ex parte Benaim and Khaida
Not required to give full reasons to protect confidential sources of information
Errington v Minster for Health
Evidence had been heard from one side in absence of the other