Lanbuk on Administrative Law: cases
29 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what was held and the principle.
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) (1984)Lord Diplock grouped the grounds of review as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
- Barnard v National Dock Labour Board (1953)A body given a judicial or disciplinary discretion must exercise it itself.
- Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works (1943)A minister's powers may be exercised by responsible officials in his department. The minister remains answerable to Parliament.
- Attorney-General v Fulham Corporation (1921)A public body may only do what its statute authorises.
- Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1968)Errors of law take a body outside its jurisdiction, and ouster clauses are read narrowly.
- Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968)Discretion must be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act, and there is no such thing as an unfettered discretion.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables (1997)A decision-maker exercising a quasi-judicial function must ignore public clamour and consider the individual case.
- British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology (1970)A body may adopt a policy but must not shut its ears to an application.
- McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd v Richmond upon Thames LBC (1991)A public body cannot levy a charge without clear statutory authority.
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1947)Lord Greene MR: the court can interfere only where a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.Read the full judgment
- Wheeler v Leicester City Council (1985)A public body may not use its powers to punish someone who has done no wrong.
- R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1995)The more substantial the interference with rights, the more the court requires by way of justification.
- R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)Lord Steyn explained that proportionality may require the court to assess the balance struck, going beyond Wednesbury.
- Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1971)A mandatory duty to consult must be obeyed, and failure can make a measure inapplicable to those not consulted.
- London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council (1979)Lord Hailsham: the mandatory and directory labels are only a guide. The court must ask what the legislature intended to be the consequence of non-compliance.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Jeyeanthan (1999)The court asks about substantial compliance, waiver and the consequences of non-compliance, rather than the mandatory or directory label.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1993)Lord Mustill: what fairness demands depends on the context. A person should usually be told the gist of the case against him.
- Dimes v Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852)A judge with a direct financial interest in a case is automatically disqualified, whether or not he was actually influenced.
- R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) (1999)Automatic disqualification extends to a judge closely linked with a party promoting a cause in the litigation.
- R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1923)Lord Hewart CJ: justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
- Porter v Magill (2001)The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.
- R v Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (Dr Bentley's Case) (1723)A person must be heard before being punished. The court said even God heard Adam before he was punished.
- Ridge v Baldwin (1963)Lord Reid: the duty to act fairly arises from the nature of the power and its effect on the person, not from a separate requirement to act judicially.Read the full judgment
- Kanda v Government of Malaya (1962)A person must know the case against him and have a fair chance to correct or contradict it.
- Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)A public authority that promises to follow a procedure should do so, if consistent with its statutory duty.
- R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (1999)A clear promise may create a substantive legitimate expectation that the court will enforce unless an overriding public interest justifies breaking it.
- R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc (1986)Review depends on the nature of the function, not only on the source of the power.
- R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (1981)Standing is judged together with the legal and factual context of the application.
- O'Reilly v Mackman (1982)Public law challenges should normally be brought by judicial review, with its safeguards for public bodies.