An objection was made that an inquiry was ultra vires.
Held: Since the cost of the inquiry would have been wholly wasted if, thereafter, the Minister and Parliament had approved the scheme only to be told at that late stage that the scheme was ultra vires, the courts could examine the issue. Where some administrative order or regulation is required by statute to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, the court can in an appropriate case intervene by way of judicial review before the Houses have given their approval.
Younger LJ said: ‘the interference of the Court in such a case as this, and at this stage, so far from being even in the most diluted sense of the words a challenge to its supremacy, will be an assistance to Parliament.’
Lord Atkin observed at a very early stage in the development of public law that he knew of ‘no authority which compels me to hold that a proceeding cannot be a judicial proceeding subject to prohibition or certiorari because it is subject to confirmation or approval, even where the approval has to be that of the Houses of Parliament.’
References: [1924] 1 KB 171
Judges: Younger LJ, Lord Atkin
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ex parte Smedley CA ([1985] 1 QB 657, Bailii, [1984] EWCA Civ 7)
The applicant sought, as a taxpayer, to object to the proposed payment of andpound;121m to the European Community without an Appropriation Act, but under an Order in Council. The claim was that a draft Order in Council laid by the Treasury before . . - Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC (Bailii Summary, Bailii, [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 580, [2013] 3 WLR 179, [2013] HRLR 30, [2013] 4 All ER 533, [2013] WLR(D) 244, WLRD, UKSC 2011/0040, SC Sumary, SC, [2014] AC 700)
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . . - Cited – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 3, [2014] 2 All ER 109, [2014] PTSR 182, [2014] WLR(D) 28, [2014] 1 WLR 324, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0172, SC, SC Summary)
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 09 August 2020; Ref: scu.258760
