Cooper V. Wandsworth Board Of Health Case Study

3237 Words 13 Pages
Register to read the introduction… This was later diluted in Errington v. Minister of Health[9] forming the basis of the traditional approach limiting the scope of natural justice to judicial cases alone. Two major flaws with this method were that it was artificial and also non-constructive.[10] Artificial in the sense that the piffling judicial matters such as driving offences would be granted a more stringent hearing procedure, whilst an individual who is about to lose their license for a business would not be offered the same rigorous procedure merely because it's an issue which falls under the controls of a public authority and not the state. Both situations are equally as important, as one is concerned with public safety whilst the other involves the loss of one's business and livelihood. Despite these flaws the old approach was still adapted in subsequent cases. (See: Nakkuda Ali v. Jayararatne [11], R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Parker[12]). Under this Errington [1935][13] method Popeye’s submission is likely to fail under natural justice as his case lacks judicial …show more content…
[11] Nakkuda Ali v. Jayararatne [1951] AC 66.
[12]R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Parker [1953] 1 WLR 1150.
[13] Errington v. Minister of Health [1935] 1 KB 249.
[14]Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40.
[15] Wade H. W. R, Constitutional Fundamental (1980), 1st Ed, Steven and Sons Limited: London.
[16] Loveland I, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, And Human Rights; A Critical Introduction (2012), 6th Ed, Oxford University Press, page 482.
[17] Tucker LJ in Russel v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109 at 118.
[18] Ridge made it clear that it was not so much the type of decision being made, or the status of the person making it that was important so much as whether fairness demanded consultation.
[19] R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Hook [1976] 1 WLR 1052.
[20] Lord Denning Ibid at 1056.
[21] R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Hook [1976] 1 WLR 1052.
[22] (R. (on the application of Birmingham and Solihull Taxi Association) v. Birmingham International Airport Ltd [2009] EWHC 1462.
[23] Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC

Related Documents