Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465
Country:
United Kingdom
HL ruled that the power to sell property to tenants in the hope of gaining party political advantage was unlawful. This was because the power conferred on LA had to be used for its intended purpose, which did not include electoral gain.
The test to be used for bias was “whether the fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased” (Lord Hope), as opposed to the “real danger” test in Gough.
This brought the UK’s test for bias in line with that of the test for “impartiality” within Article 6 ECHR.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
- 'Oxbridge Notes' prizewinning note marketplace has been serving students since 2010 with premium study materials
- Reap the benefits of joined-up learning and earn higher grades, just like our 75,000+ happy customers.
Premium study materials available for review
LLB Law Notes Bundle
As an LLB law student, you're faced with the daunting task of ...
1747 purchased
8,989
pages
Similar cases
Metropolitan Properties v Lannon
Plaintiff, a property company, challenged the decision of a Rent Assessment Committee on the basis that Defendant, a member of the committee, had, as a solicitor, given rent advice to tenants of a cl...
Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
Defendant accepted that Plaintiff was homeless and that it had a duty to make her a reasonable offer of accommodation. It offered her a flat, which she contended was unsuitable since the area was cha...
R v Gough
This was a case involving a juror who was the next door neighbour of the brother of the accused but swore an affidavit that she wasn’t aware of the fact until after the jury delivered its verdict. Th...
De-Winter Heald v Brent LBC
Question of whether it was contrary to Article 6 for reviews of a council’s decision on housing applications to be contracted out to a private company, hired by the council for the purpose. CA said i...
R v Hillingdon L B C ex parte Puhlhofer
Plaintiffs claimed to be “homeless” under the Housing Act which would entitle them to be given LA “accommodation”, and therefore requested to be given accommodation by the LA, who refused. They sough...
Related product samples
Need instant answers? Our
AI exam tutor is here to help.
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across
all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.