The appellant challenged the decision of the Commission not to award a grant, and alleged that the failure to give reasons for its decision vitiated that decision.
Held: The commission was not adjudicating on a question of fact, but making a complex assessment of competing interests. That decision was an exercise of a subjective judgement, and as such was not properly susceptible to judicial review. The commission need not give a detailed explanation of its reason, but need only state the main reason.
Citations:
Times 06-Jun-2002, Gazette 06-Jun-2002, Gazette 20-Jun-2002, [2002] EWHC 916 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
National Lottery etc Act 1991 41
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina (Asha Foundation) v Millenium Commission CA 16-Jan-2003
The applicant had applied for funding to the Millennium Commission. It now appealed a refusal to order the respondent to give full reasons for its decision.
Held: The applicant requested what it called meaningful reasons. The importance of . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina (Asha Foundation) v Millenium Commission CA 16-Jan-2003
The applicant had applied for funding to the Millennium Commission. It now appealed a refusal to order the respondent to give full reasons for its decision.
Held: The applicant requested what it called meaningful reasons. The importance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Judicial Review
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.172255
