JR Flashcards

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Law1133
  • Created on: 25-04-16 21:33
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex Parte Aga Khan [1993]
Availability of JR, horse disqualified after failing drugs test, sought JR of committee's decision. Held: Jockey club not a public body, decisions not subject to JR
1 of 19
R v Panel on Takeovers & Mergers, ex parte Datafin [1987]
Availability of JR, Datafin sought JR of a panel decision to reject a complaint. Held: Panel considered public body due to importance of role.
2 of 19
Prima Facie
There is a case/appears to be a case to answer
3 of 19
Locus Standi
The right to bring the case forward
4 of 19
R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Fed of Self-employed & small businesses [1982]
Locus Standi of JR, Fed challenged IR's procedure for levying taxes on casual workers [their workers didn't benefit]. Held: As it didn't affect individual members of the fed, they couldn't bring action
5 of 19
R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex Parte Greenpeace [1994]
Locus Standi for JR, Greenpeace brought action to challenge policy of discharging toxic waste from Sellafield Plant. Held: Although not directly affected, they had expertise to bring an action over residents
6 of 19
GCHQ Case [1985]
Grounds for JR, Workers at GCHQ not allowed to join trade union, Government altered, through prerogative powers, terms of employment to prohibit this. Held: Set out three grounds
7 of 19
Attorney General v Fulham Corp [1921]
Illegality & Ultra Vires, Corp had statutory obligation to provide wash houses for the poor, wanted to open commercial laundry. Held: Charging money was beyond powers
8 of 19
Ultra Vires
Beyond Powers
9 of 19
R v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, ex Parte Macarthy and Stone [1992]
Illegality & Ultra Vires, Council required to consider planning apps but introduced informal consultations charging £25, Held: No power to levy £25 charge so ultra vires
10 of 19
R v Port Talbot Borough Council ex Parte Jones [1988]
Irrelevant Considerations, Councillor granted tenancy ahead of waiting list. Justification = councillor needed to live within borough she represented. Held: Irrelevant factor so ultra vires
11 of 19
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953]
Unauthorised delegation of powers, The National Board had the power to discipline its members but delegated this power to port managers. Held: Delegation = unlawful. Any disciplinary powers by port managers = ultra vires.
12 of 19
Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] (Wednesbury Reasonableness)
Local authority had the power to license cinemas to open on Sunday under any conditions fit to impose. 'No persons under 15', = unreasonable. Held: If a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could come to it, courts can interfere
13 of 19
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Brind [1991]
Unreasonableness, Gov introduced ban on TV transmission of IRA/Sinn Fein speech. Held: Not so unreasonable that no reasonable Home Secretary could ever have reached decision, not unreasonable.
14 of 19
Hall and Co Ltd v Shoreham-by-sea Urban Development Corporation [1964]
Unreasonableness, Hall & Co granted permission to develop land but on condition at their own expense construct a road to be used by public. Held: unreasonable to pass public burden of road construction on individual
15 of 19
Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd [1972]
Nature of Procedural Impropriety, Minister established Industrial Training Boards but was required to consult organisations in area concerned. Mushroom Grows Assoc. did not receive notice. Held: Order had no application to MGA
16 of 19
Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council v Palmer and Bowles [1983]
Nature of Procedural Impropriety, Council empowered to issue tree preservation orders to protect selected trees. Order required plan identifying relevant tree to be available for public inspection - no plan made. Held: Order invalid.
17 of 19
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Doody [1994]
Requirement to provide reasons for decisions, Applicants were life sentence prisoners, applications for parole refused for unknown reasons. Held: No general duty to disclose, but this is contrary to public interest in serious cases
18 of 19
Foreign Compensation Act 1950, Section 4
Determinations of the Compensation Commission shall not be called into question in any court of law. [Provision removed by the Statute Law (repeals) Act 1989]
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

R v Panel on Takeovers & Mergers, ex parte Datafin [1987]

Back

Availability of JR, Datafin sought JR of a panel decision to reject a complaint. Held: Panel considered public body due to importance of role.

Card 3

Front

Prima Facie

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Locus Standi

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Fed of Self-employed & small businesses [1982]

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Constitutional & Admin resources »