ws4

Question 1

CCSU v Minister for Civil Service [1984]

Answer 1

Lord Diplock identified the grounds for judicial review: 
- Illegality
- Irrationality
- Procedural Impropriety
----------------------------------
Developed a new test for irrationality:

a decision needed to be so outrageous in its defiance of logic, or of accepted moral standards, that no sensible person could have arrived at it.

Question 2

R v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC, ex p McCarthy and Stone Ltd [1992]

Answer 2

Without Legal Authority:

Found that charges imposed for providing informal pre-application planning advice were ultra vires because of the lack of a relevant power.

Question 3

Vine v National Dock Labour Board [1957]

Answer 3

Rule Against Delegation

House of Lords held that the decision to dismiss Vine was void because the duty of the local board could not be delegated to a separate committee.

Question 4

Carltona v Commissioners of Works [1943]

Answer 4

Rule Against Delegation

Established that government Ministers sub-delegating decision-making powers to civil servants in their departments provides an exception to the general rule against delegation.

Due to convention of individual ministerial responsibility, Ministers are ultimately responsible to Parliament for their departments, so there is an expectation that they act through their civil servants in taking major decisions.

Question 5

R v Adams [2020]

Answer 5

Rule Against Delegation

Supreme Court stated that, exceptionally, the Carltona principle would not apply if:

• The wording of the statute made it clear that the decision was one for the Minister alone; or
• The decision was a crucial one with serious consequences, and placing a duty on the individual Minister would not place an excessive burden on them.

Question 6

Lavender & Sons [1970]

Answer 6

Fettering of Discretion

Wrongfully refused planning permission as relevant Minister was acting under the discretion of another Minister

Question 7

British Oxygen [1971]

Answer 7

Fettering of Discretion

• Ministers may formulate general policies to assist with large numbers of applications, however, this must not prevent the Minister from considering individual cases which may fall outside of the scope.
• Ruled that policy must not be enforced too rigidly, and that anyone who has a statutory discretion ‘must be always willing to listen to anyone with something new to say’.

Question 8

Congreve v Home Office [1976]

Answer 8

Unauthorised Purpose

• Government raised the cost of the TV licence fee, so many people responded by taking out a new one before the prices raised, Home office threatened revocation.
• Court found that the Home Office had no authority to revoke the licences, it was simply to raise revenue and not provided for by Parliament - would be a misuse of power.

Question 9

Westminster Corporation [1905]

Answer 9

Dual Purpose

• Where there are dual purposes behind a decision, provided the authorised purpose is the ‘primary’ one, the decision is not ultra vires and should stand.
• House of Lords found that the primary purpose of the decision in question had been authorised, therefore, was acceptable.

Question 10

R v ILEA [1986]

Answer 10

Dual Purpose

• Proposed a test in deciding whether the consideration of an irrelevant factor should invalidate a decision:

‘Was the authority pursuing an unauthorised purpose, which ‘materially influenced’ the making of its decision?’

Question 11

Roberts v Hopwood [1925]

Answer 11

Relevant/Irrelevant Considerations

• House of Lords found that the Council had taken account of irrelevant considerations including ‘socialist philanthropy’ and ‘feminist ambition’.
• The Council had also disregarded relevant considerations, namely the wage levels in the labour market and the burden which would be placed on the ratepayers as a consequence of its decision.

Question 12

Padfield [1968]

Answer 12

Irrelevant Consideration

Minister took into account potential political embarrassment in refusal to hear a complaint

This was deemed an irrelevant consideration.

Question 13

Anisminic Ltd v FCC [1969]

Answer 13

Error of Law, will always be amenable to judicial review

Question 14

Khawaja [1984]

Answer 14

Error of Fact

• Home Secretary attempted to remove an immigrant, whom he believed was illegal.
• The immigrant was not illegal, therefore, outside of the Home Secretary’s jurisdiction to act.

Question 15

Wednesbury [1948]

Answer 15

Irrationality

Developed a test for irrationality:

• Whether, having regard to relevant considerations only, the decision-maker came to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.