Judicial Review

?
  • Created by: Amy
  • Created on: 09-05-16 16:23
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993]
Horse belonging to Aga Khan was disqualified from a race by the committee (failed a drug test). Aga Khan sought JR of the decision. Held not a public body so not subject to JR.
1 of 20
R v Panel on Takeover and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987]
Panel established by City of London in order to regulate the takeover and merger of companies. Datafin sought JR to a rejection compliant the panel made. Given public importance of its role, panel could be regarded as a 'public body'.
2 of 20
R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of self-employed and small businessess [1982]
The Fed sought to challenge procedure for levying taxes on casual workers engaged by Fleet Street newspaper. The Fed argued their members were disadvantaged. Held taxation agreement did not apply to the individual members. no sufficient interest.
3 of 20
R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace (No.2) [1994]
Greenpeace sought to bring an actiong challenging policy of discarding toxic waste in Irish Sea. Not directly affected but much better equipped to bring an action that the affected residents.
4 of 20
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
C challenge a determination of the commission who sought to rely on S4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950: 'determination shall not be called into question in any court of law'. Held 'determination' did not exclude decision of correct in law.
5 of 20
Council of the Civil Service Union v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] (the GCHQ case)
Decided by the government that workers at the GCHQ should not be allowed to join a trade union.. Altered the terms of employment - union sought JR - Diplock's 3 grounds for JR: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety
6 of 20
Att Gen v Fulham Corporation [1921]
Corporation had a statutory obligation to provide washhouse for the poor. Held opening a commercial laundry which would charge was not within their power.
7 of 20
R v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd [[1992]
Council required to consider planning applications but also introduced a system of informal consultations charging £25. Held no power to levy charge. Therefore it was ultra vires.
8 of 20
R v Port Talbot Borough Council, ex parte Jones [1958]
Councillor granted a tenancy on a council house ahead of waiting list. Council justified decision that she needed to live within the borough she represented. Held irrelevant factor - decision was ultra vires.
9 of 20
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953]
National board had power to discipline members - delegated this to port managers. Delegation held unlawful.
10 of 20
Wednesbury [1948]
Local authority had the power to license cinemas to open on Sundays, subject to conditions it thought fit to impose. Authorities decided no under 15 allowed on a Sunday. Greene - decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could come to it.
11 of 20
Brind [1991]
Government introduced a ban of the TV transmission of any speech by the IRA or Sinn Fein. Held not so unreasonable that no reasonable Home Secretary could ever have reached the decision.
12 of 20
Hall and Co Ltd v Shoreham-by-sea Urban Development Corporation [1964]
Hall and Co granted planning to develop land subject to condition they must constructed a road to be used by the owner of neighbouring land and public. Held unreasonable - passed public burden to individual.
13 of 20
Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd [1972]
Minister empowered to establish Industrial Training Boards but, in doing so, was required to consult relevant organisations in the area concerned. The Mushroom growers association not consulted. Order did not apply to them as they were not consulted.
14 of 20
Palmer and Bowles [1983]
Council empowered to issue tree preservation to protect trees in borough. Each order required a plan, no plans made - order failed to comply to mandatory requirements and was invalid.
15 of 20
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]
Lord Chancellor held a shareholder in the company - raised the question of bias and so invalidated decision.
16 of 20
Pinochet Ugarte [2000]
Former Chilli Dictator pending extradition to Spain for trial of war crimes. Held he didn't have immunity; immerged a Law Lord had close links to Amnesty International. Raised possibility of bias requiring the decision to be set aside.
17 of 20
Porter v Magil [2002]
1980s Converative Westminster Council policy targeted council house sales. Question of bias raised - test for bias: whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant facts, conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.
18 of 20
Ridge v Baldwin [1964]
R was Chief Constable of Brighton charged with conspiracy. Cleared but the judge was critical of his leadership. R was dismissed without a hearing. Held that the right to a fair hearing required a person to be afforded the opportunity to present case
19 of 20
R v Secretary of state for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994]
Applicants were life sentence prisoners - parole was refused without a given reason. Sought disclosure of the reason. Mustill "refusal to give reason is not fair".
20 of 20

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Panel established by City of London in order to regulate the takeover and merger of companies. Datafin sought JR to a rejection compliant the panel made. Given public importance of its role, panel could be regarded as a 'public body'.

Back

R v Panel on Takeover and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987]

Card 3

Front

The Fed sought to challenge procedure for levying taxes on casual workers engaged by Fleet Street newspaper. The Fed argued their members were disadvantaged. Held taxation agreement did not apply to the individual members. no sufficient interest.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Greenpeace sought to bring an actiong challenging policy of discarding toxic waste in Irish Sea. Not directly affected but much better equipped to bring an action that the affected residents.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

C challenge a determination of the commission who sought to rely on S4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950: 'determination shall not be called into question in any court of law'. Held 'determination' did not exclude decision of correct in law.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Administrative Law resources »