Public Bodies Cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: k1016450
  • Created on: 25-04-14 12:44
View mindmap
  • Public Bodies
    • D v East Berkshire NHS Trust 2005
      • Facts: 3 conjoined appeals regarding parents of children due to alleged negligence in the investigation of alleged child abuse.
      • Principle: There is no duty of care to a suspected perpetrator of crime. Health professionals do not owe a duty of care to parents in their decision regarding the welfare of children.
      • Outcome: The appeals failed.
    • Porter v Magill 2002
      • Facts: The leader of Westminster City Council sold off council houses at a loss in order to increase Conservative voters in marginal wards.
      • Principle: Apparent bias is whether the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a fair possibility of bias, rejecting previous tests which focused on the court's perception.
      • Outcome: Bias was found to be present and therefore the leader was liable.
    • R v North and East Devon HA, ex parte Coughlan 2000
      • Facts: A lady was told she could stay in a nursing home for life, however the health authority then wanted to close the nursing home down and move her.
      • Principle: "Where the court considers a lawful promise or practice has induced a legitimate expectation of a benefit which is substantive... the court will... decide whether to frustrate the expectation is so unfair that to take a new and different course will amount to an abuse of power." Fairness has to be weighed against public policy interest.
      • Outcome: The lady was allowed to stay.
    • Paponette v AG Trinidad and Tobago 2010
      • Facts: The taxi association had to move their stand to an area owned by the public transport authority, but were assured that it would not be given management over them. Management occurred and taxis were also charged for leaving the area.
      • Principle: The initial burden of proof of a legitimate expectation lies with the applicant, proving the promise to them was clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification. It is then for the public body to identify any overriding public interest which may justify their actions. Simply being a public body does not equal proof of this.
      • Outcome: There was no overriding public interest here.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Public Bodies resources »