ws5

Question 1

Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852)

Answer 1

An interest which may lead to financial gain falls into the direct interest (rule against bias) category

Question 2

Pinochet [1999]

Answer 2

• Lord Hoffman agreed with a judgement, became apparent he was chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd which was linked to Amnesty International, which had been involved in proceedings.
• Extended direct interest to cases of non-pecuniary interests, where the decision-maker is involved in promoting the same cause as a party to the case.

Question 3

Porter v Magill [2002]

Answer 3

• House of Lords decided that by calling a premature press conference suggesting the outcome following initial results, Magill did not create an indirect interest.
• House of Lords said that the following test should be applied in cases of indirect bias:
• Would a fair-minded and impartial observer conclude that there had been a real possibility of bias?

Question 4

ex p Hook [1976]

Answer 4

Applied the Porter v Magill test, ruled indirect bias.

Question 5

Board of Education v Rice [1911]

Answer 5

Lord Loreburn stated that there is a duty on decision-makers to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides.

Question 6

McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978]

Answer 6

Established three categories of claimant:

• Forfeiture cases - where the claimant has been deprived of something he previously enjoyed.
• Legitimate Expectation cases - Where claimant seeks renewal or confirmation of some license etc. which he has held previously
• Application cases - Where the claimant is the first-time applicant

Depending on the category of claimant, they are entitled to expect more or less from their hearing for it to be deemed fair - e.g. the right to an oral hearing.

Question 7

Ridge v Baldwin [1964]

Answer 7

• Ridge dismissed as Chief Constable of Sussex the day after his acquittal from court without any warning and no explanation
• Held that the outcome was of special importance as Ridge stood to lose (forfeit) his pension rights and livelihood.
• Established that fairness is required whenever an administrative decision affects someone’s’ rights, interests or legitimate expectations.

Question 8

Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators [1972]

Answer 8

• Liverpool taxi license holders were given written assurance that they would be first consulted if the Council decided to grant more licenses.
• Council broke this promise, was deemed a breach of procedural legitimate expectation.

Question 9

McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978]

Answer 9

The court found that as McInnes was a mere first-time application, the natural justice required of the Boxing Board of Control was only that it should act honestly and without bias.

Question 10

Lewis v Heffer [1978]

Answer 10

• Court of Appeal held that officers of the Labour Party in Newham had not yet been dismissed, merely suspended.
• The ‘right to a fair hearing’ did not apply as the decision was only preliminary

Question 11

Fairmount Investments Ltd [1976]

Answer 11

Natural justice requires that claimants in forfeiture cases should know the case against them and have the right to reply at each stage of the decision-making process.

Question 12

ex p Benaim Khada,

Answer 12

In application cases, applicants were entitled to know the gist of the decision against them as the refusal of a license case doubt on their good character

Question 13

ex p Cunningham [1991]

Answer 13

Court of Appeal ruled that natural justice requires a decision-maker should give reasons for a decision where a decision looks so wrong it ‘cries out for explanation’.

Question 14

Hasan [2008

Answer 14

The law does not generally require public authorities to give reasons for their decisions.

Question 15

Ex p Doody [1994]

Answer 15

• Where the impact on a person’s right is serious and the public interest requires the giving of reasons
• In this case applied as personal liberty was in question.

Question 16

Citizens UK [2018]

Answer 16

Claimant has a right to reasons when relevant to challenging the legality of said decision.

Question 17

Lloyd v McMahon [1987]

Answer 17

• Essentially, what fairness requires depends on the circumstances of each case;
• But, every claimant, regardless of the case category, is entitled to a hearing which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Question 18

Ex p St Germain (No 2) [1979]

Answer 18

• Generally, discretion as to whether cross-examination should be permitted, but if fairness required it, it should be permitted.
• In this case, prisoners were permitted cross-examination to contest hearsay evidence (as well as the calling of evidence and witnesses)

Question 19

Bates v Lord Hailsham [1972]

Answer 19

Committee’s functions was legislative rather than judicial, so the rules of natural justice did not apply

The reason being that delegated legislation usually affects the public as a whole, rather than having a separate effect on individual’s rights. Fairness could not require that each member of the public should be heard before legislation is made.

Question 20

Bradbury v Enfield [1967]

Answer 20

School did not provide the required notice of major reform to local school as required by Education Act 1944

Therefore, deemed non-compliance with the Act, and a breach of mandatory requirement

Question 21

Coney v Choyce [1975]

Answer 21

• School complied with two out of three notice requirements of the Education Act 1944
• Was deemed to have been a breach of merely directory requirement rather than mandatory
• Shows that whether or not a claimant is substantially prejudiced by non-compliance with an important procedural safeguard is a factor for the courts to consider in determining mandatory/directory statutory requirements.

Question 22

Soneji [2006]

Answer 22

Lord Steyn suggested that, rather than making rigid distinctions, consider the intention of Parliament and whether they would have intended the non-compliance to render the decision invalid.

Question 23

IRC, ex p Unilever [1996]

Answer 23

Example of substantive legitimate expectation.

Company was technically time-barred, but the body had always accepted similar applications in the past

Question 24

Ex p Coughlan [2001]

Answer 24

Lord Woolf outlined three categories for legitimate expectation:

1. The public authority is only required to bear in mind its previous policy, it must give this the weight it thinks right, but nothing more.
   - Here the court is confined to reviewing the decision on Wednesbury grounds. IRC, ex p Unilever [1996].
2. The promise or practice induces a legitimate expectation of, for example, being consulted before a decision is made. This is ‘procedural legitimate expectation’, see above.
3. The promise or practice induced a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit and that to frustrate the expectation is so unfair it would amount to an abuse of power.
   - The court will decide whether it would be an abuse of power to frustrate.

Question 25

R (on the application of Niazi) v SoS for the Home Department [2008]

Answer 25

Laws LJ stressed that:

• the type of legitimate expectation seen in Coughlan was likely to be exceptional
• In any case, would only apply when the body made a specific undertaking, directed at a particular individual or group - therefore, likely at a small class of people, inexpensive.

Question 26

O’Reilly v Mackman [1983]

Answer 26

• Prisoners sought remedy through private procedures rather than judicial review
• Principle of procedural exclusivity - private law should be enforce through private procedures, public law through judicial review.

Question 27

Roy v Kensington FPC [1992]

Answer 27

• GP suing Practitioners for breach of employment contract, both a public and private law issue.
• House of Lords found that where a claim is based on a mixture, the public law element may be raised in private proceedings.

Question 28

Wandsworth v Winder [1985]

Answer 28

• Principle of ‘collateral challenge’

- A defence alleging the invalidity of a public law decision may be raised in private law proceedings.

Question 29

Boddington [1998]

Answer 29

Extended principle of ‘collateral challenge’ to a defence of criminal cases.

Question 30

Datafin [1987]

Answer 30

Lloyd LJ established a two-part test to determine what constitutes a public body:

1. Source of power - if the body has been set up under statute or delegated legislation, or derives its power under a reviewable prerogative power, it is a public body.
2. Nature of power - If the body making the decision is exercising public law functions, it may still be a public body.

Only have to satisfy one limb.

Question 31

ex p The National Federation [1982] -

Answer 31

Showed how pressure groups, may in the right circumstances, based largely on merits of the case, have standing.

Question 32

ex p WDM [1995]

Answer 32

The Court set out the five relevant factors a court should consider in deciding whether a pressure group has standing to bring a judicial review claim:

1. The need to uphold the rule of law;
2. The importance of the issue raised;
3. The likely absence of any other responsible challenger;
4. The nature of the alleged breach of duty;
5. The role of the pressure group

Question 33

Finn-Kelcey [2008]

Answer 33

• It is within the court’s discretion to decide that a period of under three months is insufficiently prompt
• Have to bring the claim in as quickly as possible without any delay.

Question 34

ex p Jackson [1985]

Answer 34

• Claimant applied for leave to seek judicial review eight months after the initial grounds
• Claim form submitted late due to a very good reason, leave eventually granted
• In court’s discretion to extend the maximum time period beyond three months.

Question 35

ex p Caswell [1990]

Answer 35

Even if leave granted, the delay might result in the refusal of a remedy.

Question 36

Anisminic [1969]

Answer 36

• The courts circumvented a full ouster clause by stating that any ouster clause cannot protect decisions which are legally invalid.
• Up to the court to review a decision to decide whether it is legally valid or not.
• Ouster clauses are not void - as courts cannot declare legislation void - but their interpretation renders them ineffective.

Question 37

Ostler [1997]

Answer 37

• Partial ouster clause as it still allowed grounds to challenge, but only if made within a time period.
• The courts will give effect to those shortened time limits.

Question 38

Goldstraw [1983]

Answer 38

• Goldstraw did not make an appeal allowed by the relevant Act in time, therefore rejected
• Court held that where a claimant fails to make proper use of an appropriate statutory procedure for obtaining a remedy, the court will generally not exercise its discretion to allow an application for judicial review.

Question 39

ex p Maguire [1992]

Answer 39

Damages will only be awarded if the public body has committed a private law wrong in addition to the public law wrong.