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
Ex parte Thorpe
Absence of notice may not be unlawful if immaterial
Ex parte Polemis
Must have reasonable time to respond to the case against them
Bank Mellat (No 2)
Not given chance to respond - not justified on national security grounds
BSkyB v Metropolitan Police
Injunction against broadcasting documentary made on basis of hearing with claimants not present - reasons should have been given (position of loss)
R (Wright) v SoS Health
Must have the right to make written representations before merits of case were decided
Ex parte Anderson
Oral hearing will depend upon subject matter and substantial issues of fact that cannot be resolved by written application
R (Smith & West) v Parol Board
Oral hearing would be appropriate when assessing character or allowing prisoner to raise mitigating factors
Revoking individual’s freedom could only be done after an oral hearing
Mackay
No need for oral hearing where no issues of fact exist
Osborn v Parole Board
Oral hearing could promote accountability and transparency
When liberty is at stake - oral hearing would be appropriate
Should guard against temptation to refuse oral hearings as a means of saving time or expense
Bourgass
‘Secretive decisions based on unchallengeable allegations were neither constructive nor appropriate’
Wiseman v Borneman
Allowed for no initial oral hearing if understood one will take place later
Ex parte St Germain
Should be able to call witnesses - seriousness of punishment
Ex parte Hone
No general right to legal representation
Pett v Greyhound Racing Association
Where body is legalistic in nature, legal representation should be allowed
Ex parte Tarrant
Factors to consider: Seriousness of decision Point of law in question Ability to represent themselves Need for speedy process
Ex parte Hasan
No common law duty to give reasons
Ex parte Doody
Should give reasons - accountability and good administration in public life
Ex parte Murray
Should give reasons if no right to appeal, useful role in highlighting errors
Ex parte Institution of Dental Surgery
Administrative decision - no need to give reasons due to complexity of decision and range of factors
Ex parte Al Fayed
Only need to give partial reasons
Ex parte McCarthy
Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal
Direct interest = financial gain (automatically invalidates decision)
Necessity - if only person capable of making decision then cannot be disqualified for bias
Porter v Magill
Indirect interest - is there a real possibility of bias from the point of view of the officious and informed bystander?
Ex parte Godden
Pre-formed opinion (had already decided case) - indirect bias
Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning
Government ministers will necessarily be biased towards government policy
As long as correct complaints procedure has been complied with, courts will not interfere
Hannam
Teacher was dismissed by school governors who also sat on council empowered to approve or disapprove of her dismissal - indirect bias
Ex parte Quietlyn
Democratically elected persons should be entitled to hold strong views on matter of interest to the electors, as long as they considered individual applications
