This is an extract of our Grounds Of Review 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:
Grounds of Review _______________________________________________________ Illegality R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings (above) per Laws J - local authorities must have positive power to act whilst everything which is not forbidden is allowed for the individual However the Localism Act 2011 gives a general competence to local authorities and curtails this principle
? Forsyth: ultra vires is not really a basis for review, but rather a "fig leaf" (Sir John Laws) for judicial control of good administration
Express & reasonably incidental powers: R v Richmond LBC ex parte McCarthys & Stone Council had power to determine planning applications. But they also provided advice to intending developers & charged Held: the advice was incidental, but the charging was not. It was too far stretched from their positive authority Error of law: Errors of law on the face of the record were reviewable, and also those which were a matter of analysis & argument but which were non-jurisdictional, but not jurisdictional matters (i.e. within their competence) Anisminic British government set up a Commission to decide compensation for property confiscation in Egypt. Applicant applied & turned down due to error of law Held: success - removes the strict distinction between jurisdictional & nonjurisdictional errors & focus on unreasonableness Re Rascal Communications per Lord Diplock:
- Administrative tribunals - rebuttable presumption that errors are reviewable
- Inferior courts - no presumption
- High Court - irrebuttable presumption that it is not reviewable
Ouster clauses: Anisminic (above) per Lord Reid: ouster clauses are interpreted as narrowly as possible - S.4 Foreign Compensation Act 1950 had a natural meaning but it didn't extend to immunity
HL urged Parliament to drop the ouster clause of the Asylum & Immigration Bill and they did Wrongful delegation: Carltona v Commissioner of Works Notice requisitioning applicant's factory signed by secretary of the Commissioner Held: freedom to delegate as this was practically necessary - however the commissioner remained constitutionally responsible Fettering of discretion: Lavender & Son Minister for Housing & Local Government had a policy that he would always refuse planning permission where the Minister for Agriculture refuses Held: this was a fettering of discretion & minister should make up his own mind British Oxygen v Minister of Technology British Oxygen applied for a grant but was refused as the Board said it would not consider an application for less than PS25 Held: the minister was free to have the policy but he had to be prepared to listen to an application to disapply the policy
Unreasonableness/Irrationality Wednesbury Wednesbury gave permission to open cinemas on Sundays but imposed restriction on children under 15 Held: per Lord Greene, that though this was a reasonable, the court could review a decision for unreasonableness where:
- In making the decision, the defendant took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
- The defendant failed to take into account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
- The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.
Improper purposes: Padfield Minister chose not to refer complaint to milk marketing committee Held: rejecting minister's argument that he had a perfect discretion, Lord Reid held that discretion must be used in line with Parliamentary objectives & even a perfect discretion does not amount to a discretion not to use it Congreve v Home Office
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Public Law Notes.