Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Administrative - From: 1985 To: 1989

This page lists 41 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Edinburgh District Council v Secretary of State for Scotland; SCS 1985 - 1985 SC 261
 
Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal [1985] 3 All ER 330
1985

Nolan J
Administrative, Judicial Review
Review was sought of a decision of the Mental Health Tribunal. Held: In the specific case of Mental Health Review Tribunals, reasons for decisions must be proper, adequate and intelligible, and dealing with the substantial points raised. Judicial review was preferable to the power of a mental health review tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commissioner, Ex parte Owen [1985] QB 1153
1985
CA
May LJ
Media, Administrative
May LJ said: "Where the reasons given by a statutory body for taking or not taking a particular course of action are not mixed and can clearly be disentangled, but where the court is quite satisfied that even though one reason may be bad in law, nevertheless the statutory body would have reached precisely the same decision on the other valid reasons, then this court will not interfere by way of judicial review."
1 Citers


 
EC Gransden and Co Ltd and Falkbridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1985) 54 P&CR 86; [1986] JPL 519
1985
QBD
Woolf J
Planning, Administrative
If a decision maker intends to depart from any relevant policy, he must give clear reasons for doing so, in order that the person affected should know why the decision was being made as an exception to the policy and the grounds upon which the decision was actually made. In order to have proper regard to a policy, it is essential that the policy is properly understood by the decision-maker, otherwise the decision will be as defective as would be the case if no regard had been paid to the policy in question.
Government policy would often be a material consideration in planning decisions.
1 Citers


 
In Re Findlay, in re Hogben [1985] AC 318; [1984] 3 WLR 1159; [1984] 3 All ER 801
1985
HL
Scarman, Diplock, Roskill, Brandon, Brightman LL
Administrative, Prisons
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person whose case falls within the scope of the policy is only entitled to have whatever policy is lawfully in place at the relevant time applied to him. A Secretary of State is entitled to change his policy.
It is proper for an authority to adopt a general policy for the exercise of such an administrative discretion, to allow for exceptions from it in "exceptional circumstances" and to leave those circumstances undefined.
Scarman L said: "It is said that the refusal to except them from the new policy was an unlawful act on the part of the Secretary of State in that his decision frustrated their expectation. But what was their legitimate expectation? Given the substance and purpose of the legislative provisions . . the most that a convicted prisoner can legitimately expect is that his case will be examined individually in the light of whatever policy the Secretary of State sees fit to adopt provided always that the adopted policy is a lawful exercise of the discretion conferred upon him by the statute. Any other view would entail the conclusion that the unfettered discretion conferred by the statute upon the minister can in some cases be restricted so as to hamper or even to prevent, changes of policy." and "the Secretary of State has clearly to consider other aspects of the early release of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment. Deterrence, retribution, and public confidence in the system are factors of importance. The Parole Board, through its judicial and other members, can offer advice on these aspects of the question. But neither the board nor the judiciary can be as close, or as sensitive, to public opinion as a minister responsible to Parliament and to the electorate. He has to judge the public acceptability of early release and to determine the policies needed to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning; 1985 - [1985] 84 LGR 168
 
Bourgoin SA v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1985] Unreported
1985


Torts - Other, Administrative
The Minister had revoked the plaintiffs' licence in order to protect English turkey producers against competition from French turkey producers, knowing that this was in breach of the UK's obligations under article 30 of the EEC treaty, that the act would and was calculated to injure the plaintiffs in their businesses, and that protecting English turkey farmers was not a purpose for the achievement of which the relevant powers were conferred upon him. Held: The court considered the tort of misfeasance in public office "I do not read any of the decisions to which I have been referred as precluding the commission of the tort of misfeasance in public office where the officer actually knew that he had no power to do that which he did, and that his act would injure the plaintiff as subsequently it does. I read the judgment in Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158 in the sense that malice and knowledge are alternatives. There is no sensible reason why the common law should not afford a remedy to the injured party in circumstances such as are before me. There is no sensible distinction between the case where an officer performs an act which has no power to perform with the object of injuring A (which the defendant accepts is actionable at the instance of A) and the case where an officer performs an act which he knows he has no power to perform with the object of conferring a benefit on B but which has the foreseeable and actual consequence of injury to A (which the defendant denies is actionable at the instance of A). In my judgment each case is actionable at the instance of A and, accordingly, I determine that paragraphs 23 and 36 of the amended statement of claim do disclose a cause of action."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054
1985


Administrative
The court considered whether it could enquire as to whether one reason for a decision of the respondent was that it could be used as a cloak to disguise an improper ulterior motive.
1 Citers



 
 Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security; HL 17-Oct-1985 - [1985] 3 All ER 402; [1986] AC 112; [1985] 3 WLR 830; [1985] UKHL 7; [1986] 1 FLR 229

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council; HL 12-Dec-1985 - [1986] AC 240; [1985] UKHL 8

 
 Kioa v West; 18-Dec-1985 - (1985) 60 ALJR 113; (1985) 159 CLR 550; [1985] HCA 81
 
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and others (1986) 162 CLR 24
1986

Gibbs C.J, Mason, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ
Commonwealth, Administrative
(High Court of Australia) The ground of failure to take into account a relevant consideration can only be made out if a decision-maker fails to take into account a consideration which he is bound to take into account in making that decision. If the discretion at issue is unconfined by the terms of the statute, the court will not find the decision-maker is bound to take a particular matter into account unless an implication that he is bound to do so is to be found in the subject-matter, scope and purpose of the Act. "Of course the Minister cannot be expected to read for himself all the relevant papers that relate to the matter. It would not be unreasonable for him to rely on a summary of the relevant facts furnished by the officers of his Department. No complaint could be made if the departmental officers, in their summary, omitted to mention a fact which was insignificant or insubstantial. But if the Minister relies entirely on a departmental summary which fails to bring to his attention a material fact which he is bound to consider, and which cannot be dismissed as insignificant or insubstantial, the consequence will be that he will have failed to take that material fact into account and will not have formed his satisfaction in accordance with law." Mason J: "It would be a strange result indeed to hold that the Minister is entitled to ignore material of which he has actual or constructive knowledge and which may have a direct bearing on the justice of making the land grant, and to proceed instead on the basis of material that may be incomplete, inaccurate or misleading. In one sense this conclusion may be seen as an application of the general principle that an administrative decision-maker is required to make his decision on the basis of material available to him at the time the decision is made. But that principle is itself a reflection of the fact that there may be found in the subject-matter, scope and purpose of nearly every statute conferring power to make an administrative decision an implication that the decision is to be made on the basis of the most current material available to the decision-maker." Brennan J: "A decision-maker who is bound to have regard to a particular matter is not bound to bring to mind all the minutiae within his knowledge relating to the matter. The facts to be brought to mind are the salient facts which give shape and substance to the matter: the facts of such importance that, if they are not considered, it could not be said that the matter has been properly considered."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Bourgoin SA v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716
1986
CA
Oliver LJ, Mann J
Torts - Other, Administrative
The plaintiffs were French producers of turkeys. They alleged that the Minister revoked their licence to import turkeys into this country by a decision that was ultra vires and motivated by a desire to assist British turkey producers, and that this amounted to misfeasance in public office. The Minister sought to have the plea struck out on the ground that it lacked the essential averment that the Minister acted with the purpose of inflicting harm on the plaintiffs, in other words that he had 'targeted malice'. Held: It was proper to draw an inference from a party's behaviour as to their tortious intentions: 'If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences, we do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not "intend" the consequences or that the act was not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them.' The court examined the necessary ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office. It recognised and analysed two strands of the tort. The claim against the nominated department of state depended on proof that "the minister's motive was to further the interests of English turkey producers by keeping out the produce of French turkey producers – an act which must necessarily injure them"
It was 'immaterial that one purpose was dominant and the second merely a subsidiary purpose for giving effect to the dominant purpose. If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences, I do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not "intend" the consequences of the act or that the act was not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them.'
Oliver LJ: "If it be shown that the minister's motive was to further the interests of English turkey producers by keeping out the produce of French turkey producers – an act which must necessarily injure them – it seems to me entirely immaterial that the one purpose was dominant and the second merely a subsidiary purpose for giving effect to the dominant purpose. If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences, I do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not "intend" the consequences or that the act was not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them. In my judgment, the judge was right in his conclusion also on this point."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston; CA 1986 - [1986] 2 All ER 941
 
Connor v Strathclyde Regional Council 1986 SLT 530
1986


Administrative

1 Citers


 
Regina v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council [1986] 1 All ER 19
1986

Glidewell J
Administrative, Local Government
A political purpose can taint an administrative decision with impropriety.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Bakhtaur Singh; HL 1986 - [1986] 1 WLR 910
 
Regina v Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Howell (1986) RTR 52
1986


Administrative, Road Traffic
After twelve years a London cab driver's licence was not renewed on medical grounds. Held: His challenge succeeded because he had been given no opportunity to make representations about the matters said to have concerned the decision-makers. An order that the matter be reconsidered and decided afresh.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay; HL 19-Feb-1986 - [1987] AC 514; [1987] 2 WLR 606; [1986] UKHL 3; [1987] 1 All ER 940; [1987] Imm AR 250
 
Feldbrugge v The Netherlands (1986) 6 EHRR 425; 8562/79; [1986] ECHR 4; [1987] ECHR 18; [1987] ECHR 18; [1986] ECHR 4
29 May 1986
ECHR

Human Rights, Administrative
The court was asked whether the applicant's entitlement to a statutory sickness allowance, which was a contributory scheme but for which she had not registered due to illness, was a civil right within the meaning of article 6. Held: The applicant claimed a right "flowing from specific rules laid down by the legislation in force" and that the right in question was "a personal, economic and individual right", a factor which brought it close to the civil sphere. Taking account of the affinity of the statutory scheme with insurance under the ordinary law, the features of private law predominated and they conferred on her entitlement the character of a civil right within the meaning of the article.
The minority were unable to persuade the majority to restrict the application of article 6, in the civil sphere, to rights and obligations in private law. "The judicialisation of dispute procedures, as guaranteed by article 6(1), is eminently appropriate in the realm of relations between individuals but not necessarily so in the administrative sphere, where organisational, social and economic considerations may legitimately warrant dispute procedures of a less judicial and formal kind."
Hudoc Judgment (Just satisfaction) Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award; Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Cowley v Heatley Times, 24 July 1986
24 Jul 1986
ChD
Sir Nicolas Brown-Wilkinson VC
Administrative
The court considered a challenge to the disciplinary procedures in the sport of swimming. Sir Nicolas Brown-Wilkinson VC said: "I am echoing the sentiments expressed by Sir Robert Megarry VC in McInness v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520. At page 1535 at F he says this: "I think that the courts must be slow to allow an implied obligation to be fair to be used as a means of bringing before the court for review honest decisions of bodies exercising jurisdiction over sporting and other activities which those bodies are far better fitted to judge than the courts. This is so even where those bodies are concerned with the means of livelihood of those who take part in those activities. The concepts of natural justice and the duty to be fair must not be allowed to discredit themselves by making unreasonable requirements and imposing undue burdens. Bodies such as the board which promote a public interest by seeking to maintain high standards in a field of activity which otherwise might easily become degraded and corrupt ought not to be hampered in their work without good cause." I think that is, if I may say so with respect, good sense. It is the court's function to control illegality and to make sure that a body does not act outside its powers. But I do not think that the interests of sport or anybody else would be served by the courts seeking to double guess regulating bodies in charge of domestic arrangements… ."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 The European Gateway; 1987 - [1987] 1 QB 206
 
Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Ex parte Elders IXL Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1221
1987


Administrative
The procedure in fact adopted by the Commission was so unfair as to be unlawful.

 
Thomas v University of Bradford [1987] 1 AC 795; [1987] 1 All ER 834; [1987] ICR 245; [1987] 2 WLR 677
1987
HL
Lord Griffiths
Administrative, Education, Employment
The lecturer sought an order for the University to comply with what he understood were its own rules. The House considered the availability of a remedy of certiorari in challenging a decision of the University visitors. Held: A university is not a public body and its decisions are not subject to judicial review. Where an applicant's Convention Rights, in particular Art 6, are not engaged then the matters in dispute would presently fall exclusively within the visitorial jurisdiction of the university - subject only to the possibility that any ultimate decision of the Board of Visitors might itself be judicially reviewable. Someone such as a professor may be both office holder and employee.
Lord Griffiths said: "the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the visitor is in English law beyond doubt and established by an unbroken line of authority spanning the last three centuries from Philips v Bury (1694) Skin 447 to Hines v Birkbeck College (1985) 3 All ER 15L." and "I now turn to consider the scope of the visitatorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction stems from the power recognised by the common law in the founder of an eleemosynary corporation to provide the laws under which the object of his charity was to be governed and to be sole judge of the interpretation and application of these laws either by himself or by such person as he should appoint as a visitor."
1 Cites



 
 Lloyd v McMahon; HL 12-Mar-1987 - [1987] AC 625; [1987] UKHL 5; [1987] 1 All ER 1118; [1987] 2 WLR 821

 
 Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Chetnik Developments Limited; HL 1988 - [1988] 1 AC 858
 
Simplex GE (Holdings) Limited v Secretary of State [1989] 3 PLR 25; (1988) 57 C& PR 306
1988
CA
Purchas LJ
Planning, Administrative
A decision should in general be quashed if by way of error a relevant consideration is not taken into account or an irrelevant consideration is taken into account unless the decision-maker was bound on the facts to have reached the same conclusion if the error had not occurred.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council [1988] QB 853
1988
CA
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Administrative, Local Government
Maladministration includes bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness in reaching a decision or exercising a discretion, but that it has nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the decision itself.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR set out the correct view of the relationship between a local authority and the Ombudsman: "There is the suggestion that the Council should issue a statement disputing the right of the Ombudsman to make his findings and that this would provide the Council with an adequate remedy. Such an action would wholly undermine the system of Ombudsman's reports and would, in effect, provide for an appeal to the media against his findings. The parliamentary intention was that reports by Ombudsmen should be loyally accepted by the local authorities concerned. This is clear from Section 30, subsection 4 and subsection 5 which require the local authority to make the report available for inspection by the public and to advertise this fact, from Section 31(1) which requires the local authority to notify the Ombudsman of the action which it has taken and proposes to take in the light of his report and from Section 31(2) which entitles the Ombudsman to make a further report if the local authority's response is not satisfactory."
Local Government Act 1974
1 Citers



 
 Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison; HL 1988 - [1988] AC 533; [1988] UKHL 16; [1988] 1 All ER 485; [1988] 2 WLR 290
 
Regina v Gwent County Council ex parte Bryant [1988] Crown Office Digest p 19
1988

Hodgson J
Administrative
The court described what was meant by consultation: "Fair consultation means: (a) consultation when the proposals are still at a formative stage; (b) adequate information on which to respond; (c) adequate time in which to respond; (d) conscientious consideration by an authority of the response to consultation "
1 Citers


 
Regina v Director of GCHQ ex parte Hodges Unreported, 20 July 1988
20 Jul 1988
QBD

Employment, Administrative
The Court accepted evidence that the positive vetting procedure operated at GCHQ was required in the interests of national security. Held: The withdrawal of the applicant's positive vetting clearance was not justiciable. As to the Civil Service Union Case: "I apprehend for myself that the majority of their lordships were of the view that once it had been established by evidence that a decision had been made on behalf of Government in the interests of national security the whole ambit of that decision was one which the courts can neither enquire nor intervene."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hecq v Commission C-280/87; [1988] EUECJ C-280/87
14 Dec 1988
ECJ

Administrative
ECJ An act which is no more than a management decision, such as a reassignment of duties within an administrative unit, which does not affect an official' s position under the Staff Regulations or infringe the principle that the post to which an official is assigned should correspond to his grade, does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official within the meaning of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Such an act falls within the discretionary power which each administration has to allocate duties among the members of its staff . The administration is not in that case obliged to give the official concerned a hearing or to state the grounds on which the decision is based .
[ Bailii ]

 
 Irish Cement Limited v Commission of The European Communities (Action For A Declaration That A Measure Is Void ); ECJ 15-Dec-1988 - C-220/86; [1988] EUECJ C-220/86

 
 Jones v Department of Employment; CA 1989 - [1989] QB 1; [1988] 2 WLR 493

 
 British Medical Association v Greater Glasgow Health Board; HL 1989 - 1989 SC 65; 1989 SC HL 60

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services, Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group; CA 1989 - [1990] 2 QB 540; [1989] 1 All ER 1047
 
Regina v Devon County Council, ex parte George [1989] 1 AC 574; [1988] 3 WLR 1386
1989
HL
Lord Keith
Education, Administrative
A child lived 2.8 miles from school. The journey was rural and unlit. Whe he was 8, the education authority withdrew free transport saying it was practicable for a parent to walk with him. Held: The decision whether to offer support was that of the local Authority exercising its administrative discretion in the circumstancs of each case. There was material before them to support their conclusion, and it could not be set aside. Lord Keith: "It is section 55(1) under which a local education authority provides free transport to and from school for pupils who reside outside the statutory walking distance. In the case of such pupils a local education authority would be acting unreasonably if it decided that free transport was unnecessary for the purpose of providing their attendance at school, because if it were not provided the parents of these pupils would be under no legal obligation to secure their attendance".
Education Act 1944 39(2)(c)(5) 55(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Calder Gravel Ltd v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council; 1989 - (1989) 60 P & CR 322
 
Safeway Food Stores Ltd v Scottish Provident Institution 1989 SLT 131
1989


Administrative

1 Citers


 
Cook v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1990] 2 QB 1; (1989) 88 LGR 408; [1989] RVR 215; (1989) 154 JP 145; [1990] 2 WLR 61; [1990] 1 All ER 243
1989

Woolf LJ
Administrative
The council had public duties to perform in the maintenance of a suitable taxi service and a policy that it was seeking to implement. Held: It could feel aggrieved by a decision adverse to the stand it was attempting to enforce in respect of the grant of a licence. It was not essential that a legal burden should be placed upon a person by a decision for him to "feel aggrieved": it was sufficient if there was a decision "against" him.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte Croydon London Borough Council [1989] 1 All ER 1033
1989


Local Government, Administrative
Delay in application.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.