Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Amenable Bodies Notes

GDL Law Notes > GDL Public Law Notes

This is an extract of our Amenable Bodies document, which we sell as part of our GDL Public 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 Public Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Amenable Bodies _______________________________________________________

Definition of a Public Body CPR 54.1 that only public bodies are amenable to review Historically certiorari was designed to put the decision of an inferior court into the hands of a superior court for 'swift justice' - Halsbury's Laws describes its scope as "the determination of persons or bodies who are by status at charter entrusts with judicial functions". It required:

1. Had decision makers gone beyond power

2. Was it a decision where the recipient had a right to be heard as a principle of natural justice R v Electricity Commissioners ex parte London Electricity Joint Commission Commissioners were given power to unify electricity providers & the applicants were to be prejudiced by the scheme. In the context of a quashing order (though this was most commonly sought - has been interpreted as applying to all JR) Held: reviewable decision
? Atkin LJ: "any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially"

Ridge v Baldwin Dismissal of chief constable by the local watch committee which had a power of dismissal Held: they must dispose of their power in accordance with natural justice which he found to have been lost in wartime.
? Lord Reid: took issue with the 'judicial' element, as he found this should be inferred from the nature of the power & not a component itself. Wartime legislation could not evince such a duty, for example, because of the nature of the power

R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain (above) The board argued it was exempt from JR because it was not a public body per Atkin LJ:
- It did not have legal authority because it was set up by prerogative
- It did not determine questions affecting the rights of subjects Held: rejecting these arguments - prerogative powers justiciable in theory. Their definition as a public body established - they were one stage in the determination of questions affecting rights

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