Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Amenability To Judicial Review Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes

This is an extract of our Amenability To Judicial Review document, which we sell as part of our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:


Core public bodies: local authorities and statutory tribunals.
Factors for determining amenability to JR:
o A function of a public nature

Public importance of the function

Source of the power exercised

Duty to act judicially

Motivation for using power.
o Voluntary submission of the parties to the body's powers.
The classic definition:
o R v Electricity Commissioners, ex p London Electricity
[1924] - (facts irrelevant) Atikin LJ:
 "Extends to anybody of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially."
o R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p Lain
[1967] - challenge to the CICB. CICB argued it did not have legal authority as its powers were established by prerogative not statute, and that it was not determining the rights of subjects as its awards were ex gratia.
 Lord Parker: "The only constant limits throughout were that it was performing a public duty."
 i.e. there are to be no limits to the power of the courts in judicial review. An explosive statement that did not get much notice at the time.
The High-Water Mark of Reviewability:
o R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1987]
- A private City institute that devised rules for takeovers and mergers. A company made a complaint and sought review.
Panel was held ameaable
 Lloyd LJ: "if the body is exercising a public law function, or if the exercise of its functions have public law consequences, then that may be sufficient to bring the body within the reach of judicial review."
 i.e. All that is required for reviewability is some public element
The Hypothetical Disappearance Test:
o R v Advertising Standards Authority, ex p Insurance
Service (1989)
 Glidewell LJ: if this body were to abdicate its functions overnight, would the government be compelled to replace the body.
o Applied in: R v Bar Council ex p Percival held parliament would have brought in a body to regulate barristers if bar council did not exist.
A 'domestic tribunal' is generally not subject to review. These are bodies with whom you have a contract/voluntarily submitted to:

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes.

More GDL Constitutional And Administrative Law Samples