Natural Justice

?
Ridge v Baldwin
By dismissing CC without giving him the right to be heard in his defence = ultra vries
1 of 39
Re HK (an infant)
No need for an elaborate hearing because claimant and father understood concerns and had opportunity to address them
2 of 39
R (on the application of Shoesmith) v Ofted & others
no hearing= unlawful because didn't give a chance to respond to allegation
3 of 39
Bank Mellat
unlawful because didn't have chance to provide explanations for conduct. Where admin actions has drastic impact then important to know allegations & time allowed for response before final decision
4 of 39
McInnes v Onslow
decisions that involve forfeiture or deprivation of a right require higher standard of procedural fairness than when an individual is making an application
5 of 39
R v SoS for the Home Dept ex p Fayed
so many problems that claimants couldn't make effective representations unless they knew opposing side. DOn;t have to be told details as long as they get general idea esp when the info is confidential.
6 of 39
R v Gaming Board for GB ex p Benaim & Khaida
claimants had opportunity to deal with general allegations and that was fair
7 of 39
R (Bourgass) v SoS for Justice
breach of natural justice because prisoners were only given general statements that didn't enable them to make meaningful representations
8 of 39
Article 6 ECHR
equality of arms principle - each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis his opponent
9 of 39
Home Secretary v AF (No 3)
to remain compatible with Art 6, a controllee had to be given the 'gist' of the allegations against him/her to enable him/her to give effective instructions to his/hers special advocate
10 of 39
Lloyd v McMahon
Councillors didn't request oral hearing, were able to make full representations answering all issues, if they asked for oral hearing, the one should have been given.
11 of 39
R v Army Board for Defence, ex p Anderson
upheld claim because army board didn't even consider whether an oral hearing would be appropriate
12 of 39
R (Osborn) v Parole Board
oral hearing usually held when the facts were in dispute
13 of 39
Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association Ltd
proceedings at tribunal may be speedier and less costly if conducted without lawyer present
14 of 39
R v SoS for Home Dept ex p Tarrant
seriousness of the offence should be taken into account
15 of 39
R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze, ex p Hone
prisoners charged with assault, didn't need legal representation = straightforward
16 of 39
Article 6 HRA
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing, decision would have to go further and lead to loss of livelihood
17 of 39
Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
claimant would be deprived of his job and his livelihood as a doctor too
18 of 39
R (G) v Governors of X Schools
didn't apply, his livelihood of being a teaching assistant wouldn't be deprived
19 of 39
R v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex p Cunningham
required claimant knew the issues when making decision because he received a compensation that was considerably lower of what was expected
20 of 39
R v SoS for the Home Dept ex p Doody
reasons necessary so claimant could ensure decision was made lawfully and they had opportunity to challenge decision by way of JR. Key issue if fairness
21 of 39
R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex p the Institute of dental surgery
reasons required where subject matter of decision is of particular importance (Doody personal liberty at stake) here interests at stake was not as serious - cut in research funding
22 of 39
R (on the application of Hassan) v SoS for trade and industry
there's no general right to reason for admin decisions, more likely where there's a personal interest at stake
23 of 39
Direct Bias
if this exists then automatically disqualifies the decision maker and decision will be set aside, mostly concerned with financial interests. Question of fact that will succeed only when supported wit by the clearest evidence
24 of 39
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors
financial interest because judge held shared in company
25 of 39
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)
non financial interest but judge was director of Amnesty International he was the judge in his own cause
26 of 39
Apparent Bias
whether a fair minded and informed observer having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased
27 of 39
Porter v Magill
challenged that auditor was biased because at press conference before conclusion, he generated prejudicial publicity against claimants. Fair minded observer would think he acted unwisely but not biased
28 of 39
Re Medicaments & Related Classes of Goods (No2)
making an application of employment to one of the consultants, indicated a partiality to them which wouldn't be undone
29 of 39
Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd
counsel for one of the parties before EAT also sat as a part-time judge in the EAT. lay members previous relationship with counsel, in his capacity as a part time judge, would likely make him biased in his favour
30 of 39
Gillies v SoS for work and pensions
no bias because doctors relationship with benefits agency was very remote, as she was just one of a number of experts on its list and she would be expected to have a degree of detachment from the agency
31 of 39
Helow v SoS for the home dept
judge dismissed palestinian asylum seeker and he was a member of jewish lawyers that wrote articles that were pro israel, no bias because membership alone didn't mean he supported views
32 of 39
R v Barnsley MBC ex p Hook
market manager present throughout committee's proceedings and he brought the complaint = bias
33 of 39
AG v Ng Yuen Shiu
Hong Kong govt bound by its undertaking to consider each case on the merits they weren't permitted to go back on its statement
34 of 39
R v SoS for Home Dept ex p Khan
circular created legitimate expectation, not fair that couple were given false hope and then new criterion added that wasn't communicated to them
35 of 39
R v Norther & East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan
successful benefit expectation because promise was only made to small number of individuals and consequences financial only
36 of 39
R (Patel) v General Medical Council
benefit expected because statement made specifically to claimant, keeping promise would only affect small number of people
37 of 39
R (luton BC & others) v SoS or education
no substantive expectation but procedural expectation. no substantive because haven't reached final binding stage of process
38 of 39
R (Bibi) v Newham LBC
couldn't create substantive expectation because then would need to take into account need of all on housing trust. but must listen to claims with open mind but final decision is with the SoS
39 of 39

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Re HK (an infant)

Back

No need for an elaborate hearing because claimant and father understood concerns and had opportunity to address them

Card 3

Front

R (on the application of Shoesmith) v Ofted & others

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Bank Mellat

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

McInnes v Onslow

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 Administrative resources »