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: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Warwickshire County Council, Ex parte Collymore [1995] ELR 217
1995

Judge J
Administrative
The court questioned the over rigid application of a policy in a decision by the respondent.
1 Citers


 
Regina v Northern and Yorkshire RHA, ex parte Trivedi [1995] 1 WLR 961
1995

Auld LJ
Health Professions, Administrative
The court discussed the scope of the disciplinary process undertaken by the respondent: "The fact that the process is investigative and inquisitorial rather than a form of litigation between the parties …. does not mean that the medical service committee or the authority is entitled to investigate and make findings on matters not the subject of complaint."
1 Citers


 
Ex parte Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 714
1995

Sedley
Administrative
Judicial review was requested of a decision of the Minister to declare a moratorium on the permitted transfer of certain fishing licences. Held: The request failed. Sedley J put forward a test for what makes a claim for a legitimate expextation: "These considerations, I think, bring one closer to some conceptual understanding of what makes an expectation legitimate. Legitimacy in this sense is not an absolute. It is a function of expectations induced by government and of policy considerations which militate against their fulfilment. The balance must in the first instance be for the policy-maker to strike; but if the outcome is challenged by way of judicial review, I do not consider that the court's criterion is the bare rationality of the policy-maker's conclusion. While policy is for the policy-maker alone, the fairness of his or her decision not to accommodate reasonable expectations which the policy will thwart remains the court's concern (as of course does the lawfulness of the policy). To postulate this is not to place the judge in the seat of the minister. As the foregoing citations explain, it is the court's task to recognise the constitutional importance of ministerial freedom to formulate and to reformulate policy; but it is equally the court's duty to protect the interests of those individuals whose expectation of different treatment has a legitimacy which in fairness outtops the policy choice which threatens to frustrate it." He asked rhetorically whether the Minister's decision was fair:- "This, as I have held, while initially a question for the minister is ultimately a question for the court. But, in answering the question, the minister's policy objectives and reasoning form as important an element of the forensic exercise as do the potency and reasonableness of the applicant's expectations."
1 Citers


 
Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte British Broadcasting Corporation Independent, 04 March 1995; Times, 24 February 1995
24 Feb 1995
QBD

Media, Administrative
A pressure group has no locus to make complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
Broadcasting Act 1990 144(7)


 
 Wood v Law Society; CA 1-Mar-1995 - Times, 02 March 1995; Independent, 01 March 1995

 
 Regina v Cambridge Health Authority ex parte B; CA 10-Mar-1995 - [1995] EWCA Civ 49; [1995] Fam Law 480; [1995] 6 Med LR 250; [1995] 1 FLR 1056; [1995] 2 FCR 485; [1995] 2 All ER 129; [1995] COD 407; [1995] 1 WLR 898
 
Regina v Coventry Airport Ex Parte Phoenix Aviation; Regina v Dover Harbour Board Ex Parte Gilder Independent, 13 April 1995; Times, 17 April 1995; [1995] EWHC Admin 1; [1995] 3 All ER 37
12 Apr 1995
QBD
Simon Brown LJ, Popplewell J
Local Government, Administrative
A local authority operator of an airport suspended flights on aircraft transporting livestock; a harbour authority refused to allow cross-Channel services for the export of live animals; and a local authority challenged the decision of a statutory body operating a dock not to ban the export of live animals. In each case what was relied on to justify imposing a ban was the activity and size of the disruptive protests. Held: None of the bans was lawful under the body's statutory power but each was, or would have been, unlawful. The authority had given in to unlawful threats. "None of them, it appears, gave the least thought to the awesome implications for the rule of law of doing what they propose." This was contrary to "the thread [which] runs consistently throughout all the case law; the recognition that public authorities must beware of surrendering to the dictates of unlawful pressure groups." A lawful trade in live animals was not to be interrupted for fear of public disorder.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; CA 28-Apr-1995 - Times, 28 April 1995; [1995] 27 HLR 439; (1995) 30 HLR 481
 
Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Lay and Gage Unreported, 15 May 1995
15 May 1995
Admn
Mr Justice Latham
Agriculture, Administrative, European
The claimants sought damages for the wrong interpretation of the law by the Ministry, which had restricted their rights to milk quota. Held: Making an administrative decision which was in breach of European law was not enough in itself to justify a claim in damages, there had to be some misinterpretation of European law. The respondent acted bona fide, and made an excusable mistake as to the interpretation of a legislative provision which was not clear or precise. No claim for damages lay against them.
1 Cites



 
 Bolton Metropolitan District Council and Others v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others; HL 25-May-1995 - Times, 25 May 1995; Ind Summary, 10 July 1995; (1995) 71 P & CR 309; (1995) 1 WLR 1176
 
Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others Times, 13 June 1995; Independent, 08 June 1995
7 Jun 1995
QBD
Simon Brown LJ and Curtis J
Employment, Administrative, Human Rights, Discrimination, Armed Forces
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ´The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.' After referring to changes of attitude in society towards same-sex relationships: "I regard the progressive development and refinement of public and professional opinion at home and abroad, here very briefly described, as an important feature of this case. A belief which represented unquestioned orthodoxy in year X may have become questionable by year Y and unsustainable by year Z. Public and professional opinion are a continuum."
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: "It is, inevitably, common ground that the United Kingdom's obligation, [under article 8] binding in international law, to respect and secure compliance with this article is not one that is enforceable by domestic courts. The relevance of the Convention in the present context is as background to the complaint of irrationality. The fact that a decision-maker failed to take account of convention obligations when exercising an administrative discretion is not of itself a ground for impugning that exercise of discretion."
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex parte Lower Burytown Farms Limited and National Farmers Union and others [1995] EWHC Admin 2; [1995] EWHC Admin 2
1 Aug 1995
Admn
Mr Justice Laws
Agriculture, Administrative
The applicants were farmers who had claimed payments under the set-aside scheme. Payment was refused on the basis that they had claimed too much, but payment was ordered to be made after a ruling in Europe. They now sought judicial review of a refusal to pay interest on the payments withheld. The claims were wrong, but not fraudulent. Interest was payable if the sum claimed was owed as a debt. Held: The sums would not have been claimable by writ, and orders for review were granted.
Council Regulation 1765/92
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady [1995] EWCA Civ 22; [1996] 2 WLR 305; [1996] QB 517; [1996] IRLR 100; [1996] ICR 740; [1996] 1 All ER 257
3 Nov 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Henry LJ, Thorpe LJ
Employment, Armed Forces, Administrative, Human Rights
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: "The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Highland Regional Council v British Railways Board Times, 06 November 1995
6 Nov 1995
IHCS

Administrative
Full statutory procedure must be followed before board is allowed to close line.


 
 Regina v Avon County Council Ex Parte Crabtree; CA 15-Nov-1995 - Times, 29 November 1995
 
Regina v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex Parte Save Our Railways and Others Etc Independent, 20 December 1995; Times, 12 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
CA

Administrative
A requirement that proposed timetables should be 'based upon' existing timetables meant there should be no significant departures from such timetables.

 
Regina v Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, Ex Parte Save Our Railways and Others Etc Times, 18 December 1995
18 Dec 1995
CA

Administrative, Transport
A requirement that new services should be 'based upon' the present timetables did not mean that the services had to be at same level. It was possible that they may be a lesser service.
1 Citers


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