Improper Purpose Cases

?
  • Created by: Tiana H
  • Created on: 30-04-18 13:43
Sydney Municipal Council v Campbell
Improper purposes: the statute expressed it for was for 'he carrying out of improvements in or remodelling any portion of the city' - but was said council were buying it because of the bulding project nearby which would raise the value of the land.
1 of 5
ex parte King
When no purpose is stated in statute - it is courts job to confer the intention to coincide with tht policy and objects of the act
2 of 5
ex parte Fewings
motivation - there is a difference between ' strongly disgaree w X' and 'it is for the benefit og the area that X should be prohibited' - even if a motivation of decision maker could be covered by statutory pupose, this is not sufficient
3 of 5
Westminster Corporation v london and North Western Railway Company
Dominant purpose - had power to build toilets - would require subwau to be built to access them - was debated if the subway was the true reason for making them to create a pathway across a busy street - was held that toilets were main purpose
4 of 5
ex parte Shell
unlawful puporse influenced substantially - council wanted to boycot shell under race relations act because it was a SA company (lawful) - but the unlawful purpose of pressuring company to cut ties with SA - made whole thing unlawful bc influence
5 of 5

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

When no purpose is stated in statute - it is courts job to confer the intention to coincide with tht policy and objects of the act

Back

ex parte King

Card 3

Front

motivation - there is a difference between ' strongly disgaree w X' and 'it is for the benefit og the area that X should be prohibited' - even if a motivation of decision maker could be covered by statutory pupose, this is not sufficient

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Dominant purpose - had power to build toilets - would require subwau to be built to access them - was debated if the subway was the true reason for making them to create a pathway across a busy street - was held that toilets were main purpose

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

unlawful puporse influenced substantially - council wanted to boycot shell under race relations act because it was a SA company (lawful) - but the unlawful purpose of pressuring company to cut ties with SA - made whole thing unlawful bc influence

Back

Preview of the back of card 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Public Law resources »