Judicial Review Cases

  • Created by: SHorner96
  • Created on: 21-12-18 16:45
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service 1984
Set out grounds for challenge in judicial review
1 of 50
R v Richmond-Upon-Thames 1992
Confirmed that a public body cannot act without legal authority
2 of 50
Vine v National Dock 1957
Showed that a public body cannot sub-delegate (Dock instructed further committee to review employment).
3 of 50
Carltona Principle
Carltona v Comissioners of Works 1943 - ministerial responsibility means minsters can sub-delegate to civil servants
4 of 50
Local authorities can delegate decision making powers if they make a formal resolution to do so
s101 Local Government Act 1972
5 of 50
It is a fettering of discretion to act under the dictation of another
Lavender & Sons v Minister of Housing 1970 - MOH sought advice of minister of agriculture for planning permission
6 of 50
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology 1971
Public bodies cannot apply their policies too strictly - must always be willing to listen to anyone with something new to say
7 of 50
Congreve v Home Office 1976
Using powers for an improper or unauthorised purpose - no authority to revoke cheaper TV licenses as money would be used for revenue (misuse of their power)
8 of 50
Westminster Corp v LNWR 1905
Primary purpose test - public toilets
9 of 50
Was the authority pursuing an unauthorised purpose which materially influenced the making of its decision?
R v ILEA 1986
10 of 50
Irrelevant considerations
Roberts v Hopwood 1925 - wage overpayment 'feminist ambition'
11 of 50
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture 1968
Irrelevant consideration - potential political embarrassment
12 of 50
Anismic v FCC
Error of law - wrongly deciding claim for war damages
13 of 50
Error of fact
R v Khawaja 1984 - mistaken illegal entry into the UK
14 of 50
Picture Houses v Wednesbury 1948
The Wednesbury Principle - so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it
15 of 50
Wednesbury update - outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service 1984
16 of 50
Wheeler v Leicester City Council
Used wednesbury unreasonableness to find ban on football club unfair
17 of 50
R v Parole Board 2018
parole board found irrational not to enquire further before deciding to release John Worboys
18 of 50
It is to be implied that parliament does not authorise the exercise of powers in breach of the rules of natural justice
Fairmount v SOS for Environment 1976
19 of 50
An interest which leads to financial gain is a direct interest
Dimes v Grand Junction 1852
20 of 50
R v Bow Street 1999
direct interest can be non-pecuniar where the decision maker is involved in promoting the same cause as a party to the case
21 of 50
An indirect interest can interfere with natural justice
Porter v Magill 2002 (stated at press conference person would be liable) OR R v Barnsley 1976 (presence of market manager during tribunal decision)
22 of 50
Decision makers have a duty to act in good faith and listen to both sides
Board of Education v Rice 1911
23 of 50
McInnes v Onslow-Fane 1978
Established the three categories of claimant
24 of 50
Example of forfeiture case
Ridge v Baldwin 1964
25 of 50
Example of a legitimate expectation case
R v Liverpool Corporation 1972 (taxi license renewal)
26 of 50
Example of applicant case
R v Gaming Board 1970
27 of 50
Lewis v Heffer 1978
right to a fair hearing may not apply in cases where the decision is only preliminary
28 of 50
Fairmount v SOS for Environment 1976
forfeiture claimaints should know the case against them and have the right to reply at each stage
29 of 50
The law does not recognise a general duty to give reasons for a decision
R v SOS for Trade and Industry 2008
30 of 50
R v Civil Service Appeal Board 1991
Exception from generally not giving a reason if the decision looks aberrant
31 of 50
Every claimant is entitled to a hearing which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances
Lloyd v McMahon 1987
32 of 50
An oral hearing will only be given if it is deemed a fair requirement
R v Hull Prison 1979 (contesting hearsay evidence)
33 of 50
Bates v Lord Hailsham 1972
rules of natural justice do not apply where the decision maker has a legislativ rather than judicial function, as delegated legislation will affect large numbers of the public
34 of 50
Bradbury v London 1967
failure to comply with mandatory requirement (no public notice of school reforms)
35 of 50
Failure to comply with directory requirement may not be a breach
Coney v Choyce 1975 (partial compliance with requirements)
36 of 50
R v Devon Health Authority 2001
Mardon House resident assured lifelong home - consider previous policy, procedural expectation, substantive expectation - so unfair it would be an abuse of power.
37 of 50
A substantive legitimate expectation will only arise where the public body concerned had made specific undertaking directed at particular individual or group
R v SOS for Home Department 2008
38 of 50
O'Riley v Mackman 1983
Illustrates procedural exclusivity (Prisoners trying to use private law procedure)
39 of 50
Where a claim is based on a mixture of private and public issues, the public element can be raised in private proceedings
Roy v Kensington 1992 (Doctor suing for pay)
40 of 50
Principle of collateral challenge (Public law issue can be raised as defence in private proceedings)
Boddington v British Transport Police 1998 (Smoking on train, said by-law was unlawful
41 of 50
R v Panel on Takeovers 1987
Datafin test - source of power and nature of power
42 of 50
Sufficient interest - permission stage and substantive hearing
R v Inland Revenue 1982 (argument over paying tax, federation tried to get involved but did not have standing)
43 of 50
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 1995
5 factors to consider for pressure group standing = uphold rule of law, importance of issue, absence of challenger, nature of alleged breach and role of pressure group.
44 of 50
Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes 2008
The court can refuse a claim for JR if they feel there has been undue delay
45 of 50
Courts can extend a time limit for claim, but only for good reason
R v Stratford-Upon-Avon DC 1985 (Delays in legal aid and environmental opinion)
46 of 50
R v Dairy Produce 1990
Remedy can be denied even if case has a full hearing if the initial application was outside 3 months
47 of 50
A case which is an example of a full ouster clause
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation 1969 (Clause nullified if decisions are ultra vires, as parliament would not have intended immunity from challenging this)
48 of 50
R v Ostler 1977
Example of a case with a partial ouster clause - JR unobtainable if outside prescribed time
49 of 50
The court can award damages in JR where the claimant is seeking other remedy, but damages could also have been awarded in a civil claim
R v Knowsley 1992
50 of 50

Other cards in this set

Card 2


R v Richmond-Upon-Thames 1992


Confirmed that a public body cannot act without legal authority

Card 3


Vine v National Dock 1957


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


Carltona Principle


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Local authorities can delegate decision making powers if they make a formal resolution to do so


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Judicial Review resources »