Absence/Excess Powers Cases

  • Created by: Tiana H
  • Created on: 30-04-18 11:11
Lees v Secretary of State for Social Services
Literal Approach: blind wommen applied for allowance - persons entitled to allowance were those who 'were unable to walk or virtually unable'. This does not mention persons 'who are unable to walk unaided'
1 of 9
ex parte shine reported with ex parte moore
Purposive Rule - Shine shared flat with 3 other people - tried to claim for the large householder benefit - not granted because he didnt have whole repsposibilty of the house - 'They should interpet...according to the spirit not the letter"
2 of 9
Dupont Steels Ltd v Sirs
literal vs purposive - "Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities"
3 of 9
DPP v Bull
literal vs puposive - to discover what parliament meant/intended, words must be interpreted in the context of the whole statute - the meaning of 'common prostitute' within context of Sexual Offences Act
4 of 9
Pepper v Hart
Reference to P record was permissible if: (a) leg was ambigious/obscure (b) material relied upon consisted of 1+ statements by a minster, with other P material that might be necessary to understand it (c) the effect of such statements was clear
5 of 9
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
Fact vs Law - every question of law is a matter for the courts
6 of 9
ex parte Pulhofer
law and fact combo - when it is a matter of fact and degree - deciding what is and what isnt a fact should he left to the public body who parliament entrusted, not to the courts
7 of 9
White & Collins v Minister of Health
precedent fact - power of compulsory purchase only existed in respect to land that wasnt a park - the negative statutory construction indicated whether it was a park was a precedent fact - council were in excess of their powers
8 of 9
ex Parte Keegan
fundamental factual error - woman lived rent free in sons flat - son then had to charge her because of his own financial issues - she applied for housing benefit which was refused saying she had never agreed to pay her son rent - was simply incorrect
9 of 9

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

ex parte shine reported with ex parte moore

Back

Purposive Rule - Shine shared flat with 3 other people - tried to claim for the large householder benefit - not granted because he didnt have whole repsposibilty of the house - 'They should interpet...according to the spirit not the letter"

Card 3

Front

Dupont Steels Ltd v Sirs

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

DPP v Bull

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Pepper v Hart

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Marine Science resources:

See all Marine Science resources »See all Public Law resources »