Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
67 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp |
Wednesbury unreasonableness Lord Greene set out 2 meanings 1) Umbrella sense - irrelevent considerations, bad faith, improper purpose 2) a decision may be subject to review if it is 'so unreasonable that no public body could have made it'
|
|
|
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans |
We go to court to challenge lawfulness of decisions - not to appeal to the judge to substitute their opinion but make ministers opinion compatible with the law |
|
|
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
|
GCHQ - Lord Diplock's 3 grounds of review: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
thatcher banned trade unions 2 ways of acquiring legitimate expectation 1) express understanding 2) constant past practice wednesbury - taken leave of their senses |
|
|
Ahmed v HM Treasury |
Ultra vires main authority. Frozen property. Order in council secondary legislation. No right to be heard. Rare case as government doesn't lose many national security cases Legislation must be read compatibly with our human rights |
|
|
M v Scottish Ministers 2012 |
an authority may have some discretion in the way they exercise a legal duty |
|
|
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture fisheries and food 1968 |
Minister argued he had unfettered discretion on milk prices but courts said it was their job to determine the nature and extent of discretion Illegality/irrationality ILLEGALITY: - no legal authority for actions - failed to carry out duty imposed by statute - unlawfully delegatd power to another - used power for an improper purpose - taken into account irrelevant considerations |
|
|
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex p fire brigades union |
Minister used prerogative power to bring in different statutory scheme. Court held his actions were illegal |
|
|
R v (corner house research) v director of the serious fraud office 2008 |
terrorism issue - public interest taken into account Saudi Arabia threatened to end relations with the UK if interrogation proceeded HoL found the investigation to withdraw investigation was unlawful Lord Bingham - The issue wasn't whether it was right or wrong but whether it was a decision the director was entitled to make Court upheld rule of law by applying judicial review |
|
|
Secretary of state for foreign affairs ex p world development movement |
'sound economic development' ended up being illegal courts went too far in their discretion Proper or Improper purpose |
|
|
R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte venables 1998 |
Irrelevant considerations No clear cut framework to decide when a decision is irrelevant or not Child murderer due to be released caused an uproar It was the SoS authority to determine the length of detention but he took into account public protests the courts said he should have not done this whilst exercising a traditional power |
|
|
R v Coventry City Council ex parte Pheonix Aviation 1995 |
airport had authority to run but were threats of protests against movement of animals flights Court held that it wasn't within bounds of airport to stop flights just because of public outcry as police had ample powers to control |
|
|
R v Gloucestershire ex parte Barry 1997 |
old mans disability and medical care cut back due to local authority funding statutory scheme didnt give specific guidance to local authority to determine standard of living Court said the standard expected was given lots of scope in the statute to local authority
|
|
|
R v East Sussex ex Parte Tandy |
young girl was home schooled as she was ill and local authority tried to cut back statute said they had a duty to provide suitable education so could not cut back as statute was not broad |
|
|
Pulhofer v Hillingdon LBC 1986 |
family lived in a single roomed B&B and applied for accommodation under homeless act refused as LA said their accommodation was suitable under the act family argued this was an unreasonable decision appeal dismissed as it was the public authorities decision |
|
|
R v chief constable of sussex police ex p international traders ferry ltd 1999
|
animals transported accross the channel and people protested |
|
|
R v Secretary of state for education and employment ex p begbie 2000 |
varying standard of review as not all cases of unreasonableness are treated in the same way one gov said they would create a scheme for assisted places in schools and another gov abolished that scheme. SoS had discretion to whether he continued or stopped funding and he stoppedi t Court look at what is at stake and whether they need to protect a human right or not |
|
|
R(Asif Jared) v Secretary of State for the home department 2001 |
designated individual countries to see whether or not countries had a risk of persecution so whether assylum seekers should be allowed to stay Asif challenged this when he was designated Court found SoS acted irrationally Subject matter of the legislation was more extreme here courts will look at it closer |
|
|
R v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith 1996 |
Homosexuals not allowed in the army courts didnt get involved as they believed it was a matter for the ministers to decide and inappropriate for judges to interfere pre HRA
|
|
|
AXA general insurance Ltd v HMA advocate 2011
|
constitutionally inappropriate for us to review axa due to statute
an oppressive decision which made a 'disproportionate and excessive burden' proportionality STANDING - WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW? new test from title and interest, broader scope so just sufficient interest a more expansive law of standing worried it is too liberal - we should stop pressure and lobby groups wasting court time by arguing things already lost |
|
|
Wheeler v Leicester CC 1985 |
english rugby/football union not allowed to go to SA but went anyway and were barred from using grounds on return for a year by the council court found this unreasonable courts got involved because rights were involved they intervene with conflict or violation of constitutional or common law rights |
|
|
Bbugdacay v SoS for the home department |
citizen's assylum application refused as SoS said it was not entirely truthful He showed that without assylum he would be sent to ghana where he would be harmed court looked closesly at case they found SoS decision unreasonable |
|
|
R v SoS for the home department ex parte Brind |
SoS had power to require BBC to refrain from broadcasting certain things due to prevention of terrorism act individuals challenged freedom of expression no HRA at the time Court said they had not exceeded their powers couldn't apply proportionality as HRA was not in existance Proportionality could make the courts forget the supervisory nature of their jurisdiction at the time proportionality was seen as a danger if replaced wednesbury wednesbury precedent doest allow it to be replaced |
|
|
R (Daly) v secretary of state for the home department |
Inspection of letters between prisoner and legal representative challenged as infringement on right to privacy and legal representation court said to infringe rights they had to reasonably justify the ends they were trying to achieve Intervention unlawful on BOTH common law and convention principles if you start looking at what the decision maker did then you are starting to act like you are the decision maker judges have started to weigh up which is usually left to the decision maker
PROPORTIONALITY - evolved uk test |
|
|
Venables v UK |
Court highlighted issue of SoS acting in a judicial manner constrained by domestic court law case where rights to a fair trial was breach at common law the courts are constrained on what they do but under convention this was a breach |
|
|
R (ABICIFER) V defence secretary 2003 |
lord dyson argued that wednesbury and proportionality tests are similar and we should have p only but they didn't feel it was their place to dispense wednesbury |
|
|
Huang v Secretary of State for the home department 2007 |
BBC refused broadcast which showed graphic images of abortion and argued this was against freedom of expression Lord Hoffman said the term deference was undermining the role of the courts
|
|
|
Schmidt v secretary of state |
Lord denning said that the duty to act fairly will apply when claimant has a legitimate expectation |
|
|
R(Wheeler) v Office of the Prime minister
|
W sought JR of gordon browns decision to hold referendum before ratifying lisbon treaty. similarities with Constitutional treaty court said for claiment to rely on legitimate expectation the express undertaking had to clear and unambiguous |
|
|
R v Sos for home department ex p hargreaves 1997 |
cannot say that in public law a Legitimate expectation could give you more than a procedural benefit However there is a doctrine in EU law that you have a substantive and a procedural benefit - right to be heard and given what you legitimately expect |
|
|
R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan 2001 |
Badly injured in traffic accident given special accommodation but was moved even though told she would be there here whole life. court distinguished hargreaves and said she had procedural AND substantive benefit 1) legit expectation must be limited to a small number of individuals 2) the importance of the promise 3) the consequences of holding the decision maker to their promise must only be financial |
|
|
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors |
BIAS Lord chancellor owned shares in company. No evidence that he remembered he had these shares. HoL ruled his decision was void because he had financial interest in one oft he parties so was automatically disqualified 1st rule of bias you are automatically disqualified from making decision if you have financial interest in one of the parties |
|
|
R v Boy Stree Stipndiary magistrate ex p pinochet 2000 |
BIAS Pinochet Chille leader - people wanted him to face legal charges due to disappearance of 1000s under his rule. He was close with members of the judiciary. Amnesty International Intervened and Lord Hoffman is associated with a branch of AI but not the branch involved in this case HoL said Lord Hoffman should have disqualified himself due to his interest rule of automatic disqualification does not always apply when there is financial interest the decision may be quashed even without evidence
|
|
|
Porter v Magill 2001 |
BIAS Investigation into the way torys sold off council homes and issue was whether the local auditor was sufficiently disinterested in the matter Lord hope test - 'where a fair minded and informed observer having considered facts would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias' This applies to cases without financial interest |
|
|
Helow v SoS for HD 2008 |
BIAS Lady cosgow decision that palastinian not entitled to protection from immigration regime. They said bias because she was jewish signed up to anti palistanian magazine HoL threw this argument out as she didnt write the articles Nothing to indicate fairminded observer would think she was bias |
|
|
R v Secretary of state for the environment ex p kirkstall valley campaign 1996 |
BIAS Judges held to a higher stand than public officials |
|
|
R(Alconbury) v SOS for the environment 2001 |
Independent and impartial tribunal Planning inspector argued not to be one. Procedure was against art 6 fair trial 1) decisions made by people who are politically accountable political matter accountale to the press so accountable to us so should not be decided by courts
|
|
|
Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council 2003 |
Independent and impartial tribunal homeless woman offered accom by council and thought it wasn't suitable and dangerous senior officer and local authority said it was suitable art 6 must only be for administrative decisions technically cases where people are arguing right to a fair trial where there isn't even a trial Lords determination not to let the hra change the way in which we make decisions in our democratic society |
|
|
Cooper v Wandsworth |
DUTY TO ACT FAIRLY coopers house was knocked down as construction didnt comply with regulation standards, said if he had had a hearing he could have fixed the problem Nothing in legislation said they had to act fairly but he won case power should be exercised fairly even if statute doesnt say so it applies retrospective to legislation |
|
|
R v SoS ex P Doody |
What duty to act fairly amounts to will depend on the circumstances and may change with the passing of time |
|
|
Osborn v the parole board 2013 |
if something has been taken away from you then you have an obligation to have an oral hearing depends on the facts and the importance of what is at stake sometimes also a requirement to be legally represented but again depends on the circumstances |
|
|
R v Board of visiters of HM prison the maze ex p home |
requirement to be legally represented if the case contains points of law in legal dispute |
|
|
Lord Bushell v sos of the environment |
right to cross examine the other side depends on the circumstances sometimes the decision will be made in fields of national security so cannot be entirely open in order to protect this |
|
|
A v UK |
post HRA where the gov must furnish the individual concerned with enough reasons to why they are being deported so that the individual may challenge these decisions |
|
|
R v Gaming board ex p benaim and khaida |
corrupt casino practices and gaming board had this information but could not give info out as it was told in secret. Court ruled they did not have to disclose the identity of the informer to the individuals |
|
|
Caparo v Dickman |
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES duty of care owed under negligence when it is fair just and reasonable |
|
|
X v Bedfordshire 1995 |
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Child abuse cases. You can have cases struck out if you believe they are hopeless not fair just and reasonable to impose duty of care upon local authority here law of negligence is blunt instrument alternative remedies available, limited budgets, touchy area omissions case |
|
|
Barret v Enfield |
boy in care arguing he was neglected whilst in care home. they say the owe no duty of care and apply for case to be struck out HoL distinguish bedfordshire more of neighbourhood proximity If HoL strike out the case at preliminary stage then ECHR will say that they have been denied a fair trial shift of focus from is there a duty of care to has it been breached the courts want to avoid people going to strasbourg |
|
|
osman v uk 2000 |
HILL CASE relied on by ECHR where father complaoned after death of victim of yorkshire ripper that the state should have intervened earlier. HoL said police owe no duty of are to the future victims of crime Same claim in osman but case struck out and ECHR said strike out proceedure was a violation of article 6 |
|
|
Z v UK |
same case as X v Bed but at ECHR Strasbourg realised they were wrong in osman and there was no violation of art 6 they said that there was violation of art 13 in x v bed still - right to an effective remedy |
|
|
Stovin v Wise |
Some judges mean statutory duty failure and some mean duty of care failure and this is confusing You can sue in law of negligence when an authority has discharged statutory POWER negligently You can sue only if you can show that negligent exercise of statutory power was wednesbury unreasonable If DUTY is discharged negligently wednesbury is irrelevent and we follow ordinary x v bed negligence rules
|
|
|
Phelps v Hillingdon |
BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY Duty must be one the local authority owes to a particular group of people and not the whole public Parliament in imposing the duty must in its legislation say it is a duty that you can sue |
|
|
Van Colle v Chief constable of herts police |
it must be established that authorities knew or ought to have known of the risk and they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers that were expected to avoid that risk |
|
|
Mitchell v Glasgow |
murdered y next door neighbour and history of violence local authority sued for duty of care breach mitchel lost |
|
|
Francovitch |
invented state liability 3 conditions 1) the directive concerned should entail grant of rights to the individual 2) It should be possible to identify what these rights are on the basis of a directive alone 3) Must be a causal link between the loss and the damages caused |
|
|
Factortame |
State is liable to individuals if 3 conditions are met 1) rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on people 2) breach must be sufficiently limited 3) causal link between breach and damage |
|
|
R(Carlisle) v HS |
leading case on the meaning of proportionality in EU law |
|
|
R v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Fedesa |
test of proportionality in eu law is not limited to fundamental rights cases they use it all the time Have to show that legislation is manifestly inappropriate Its more of a shield if you are challenging decisions of the EU than if you are challenging member state implementation of eu law |
|
|
West v Secretary of state for scotland |
who can be judicially reviewed tripartate (the west test) 1) must be a legal instrument that confers decision making power on decision maker 2) must be a decision maker 3) must be a party affected by the decision |
|
|
crocket v tantallon golf club |
excluded from golf club membership and sought judicial review there was a tripartate relationship - golfclub rules, confers discretion and party affected by it there is an argument that the west test should be kept to public law and gov circumstances though |
|
|
mulder v minister van land - visserij
|
you always get a substantive remedy in EU from legal certainty and legitimate expectation not just procedural as in UK law
|
|
|
YL v Birmingham city council
|
STANDING - who can be be judicially reviewed
under HRA old woman comolaint about private care home. majority ruled it couldn't be judicially reviewed since it was a relationship akin to landlord and tenant so private OVERTURNED by health and social care act 2008 |
|
|
D & J Nicol v trs of the harbour of dundee
|
STANDING WHO CAN SEEK
title and interest needed from private law axa 2011 overturned |
|
|
Lord hope - mike tyson comes to glasgow
|
STANDING WHO CAN SEEK
women refused judicial review no title and interest narrow gap in the law axa overturned |
|
|
r v foreign secretary ex p rees mogg
|
STANDING WHO MAY SEEK
Had interest as he had sufficient constitutional interest in statute english law now very easy to have interest to avoid gaps |
|
|
PROPORTIONALITY TEST EU LAW - omega |
legitimate aim neccessar suitable to achieve aim excessive burden on an individual? states given a margin of appreciation when applying eu law
|
|
|
BANK MELLOT V HM TREASURY |
PROPORTIONALITY TEST HRA/UK 1 - objective sufficiently important action connected to objective fair balance between rights of individual an dpublic good less intrusive measure been used? |
|
|
KENNEDY V CHARITY COMMISSIONER |
PROPORTIONALITY UK? not much difference between irrationality and prop |
