Dolan and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another: Admn 6 Jul 2020

Challenge to closures of schools and other provisions taken under the Regulations.
Held: The Secretary of State had the legal power to make the Regulations. In making and maintaining the Regulations, he had not fettered his discretion. He had had regard to relevant considerations. He has not acted irrationally. He has not acted disproportionately. Permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 1 and 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D in the amended claim form was refused.
The claim for deprivation of liberty was unarguable.

Judges:

Lewis J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1786 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGuzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others HL 31-Oct-2007
The Home Secretary appealed against a finding that a non-derogating control order was unlawful in that, in restricting the subject to an 18 hour curfew and otherwise severely limiting his social contacts, the order amounted to such a deprivation of . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromDolan and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Another CA 1-Dec-2020
Lockdown Measures not Ultra Vires the 1984 Act
The appellants, a businessman, and mother, appealed from refusal of leave to challenge regulations made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic on 26 March 2020 and since which introduced what was commonly known as a ‘lockdown’ in England. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.652241

Stevenage Borough Football Club Ltd v The Football League Ltd: ChD 1 Aug 1996

The Football League is a body subject to judicial review, since it exercises its control over members in the public interest.

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromStevenage Borough Football Club Limited v Football League Limited CA 6-Aug-1996
Unfair changes to the rules for the promotion of sports clubs between leagues could not be challenged retrospectively after the team in question had impliedly accepted the rules. An injunction granted may within a sporting league context have unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89547

Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 26 May 2000

The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a reasonable period, and asserted that any claim must be by way of judicial review. The defendant appealed and lost the case in the Court of Appeal, and appealed again.
Held: It was possible for a citizen to claim by way of summons sums due to him after the confiscation of his handguns, where the delay became unreasonable. There was no need to begin such proceedings by judicial review where the issue was not so much a decision, but rather the failure to deliver a statutory requirement within a reasonable time. Payment for scheduled types of handguns could be made within 30 days, and for guns which required individual valuation, 60 days was reasonable.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf M.R. Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 26-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 32, [2000] 3 All ER 226, [2000] 1 WLR 1169

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, Firearms Act 1968 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSteed v Secretary of State for Home Office CA 1-May-1998
The plaintiff claimed compensation after surrendering his firearm and ammunition. There had been a long delay in processing the claim, and he sued. The Home Office entered a defence denying that there was any obligation to process claims within a . .
CitedRye, Henson and J B Trustees Limited Trustees of Dennis Rye Pension Fund v Sheffield City Council and Frederick Henson and Rye (the Trustees of the Dennis Rye 1992 Grandchildren Settlement Fund) v Sheffield City Council CA 31-Jul-1997
Courts must not get tied up in public law/private law judicial review or other arguments when remedies and results provided by both jurisdictions are similar. The guidelines set down involved: ‘not only considering the technical questions of the . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
CitedCocks v Thanet District Council HL 25-Nov-1981
The applicant had been given temporary accomodation under the Act. He sought to enforce the obligation on the respondent to house him permanently by an action in the county court. The authority said the action should have been by judicial review. . .
CitedMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another HL 10-Feb-1995
The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. . .
CitedRoy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee HL 6-Feb-1992
The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff’s GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be . .

Cited by:

CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89525

Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2): CA 1990

An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120

Statutes:

RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See AlsoDubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440

British-American Tobacco Company Ltd and R J Reynolds Industries Inc v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 17 Nov 1987

Europa An investigation carried out by the commission in fulfilment of its duty to ensure that the rules on competition are observed does not constitute adversary proceedings between companies which have submitted an application under article 3 of regulation no 17/62, having shown that they have a legitimate interest in seeking an end to the alleged infringement, and companies which are the object of the investigation. Although complainants must be given the opportunity to defend their legitimate interests during the administrative proceedings and the commission must consider all the matters of fact and of law which they bring to its attention, their procedural rights are not as far-reaching as the right to a fair hearing of the companies which are the object of the commission’ s investigation, and the limits of such rights are reached where they begin to interfere with those companies’ rights to a fair hearing. The obligation of professional secrecy laid down in article 214 of the treaty and article 20*(2) of regulation no 17/62 is mitigated in regard to complainants, but they may not in any circumstances be provided with documents containing business secrets. The legitimate interests of complainants are fully protected where they are informed of the outcome of the confidential negotiations between the commission and the companies which are the object of its investigation with a view to bringing the agreements or practices complained of into conformity with the rules laid down in the treaty; the right of the commission and those companies to enter into confidential negotiations would be imperilled if the complainants were given the right to attend such negotiations or be kept informed of the progress made in order to submit their observations on the proposals put forward by one party or the other.
2. Where the acquisition of shares in a competing company is the subject-matter of agreements entered into by companies which remain independent after the entry into force of the agreements, the issue must first be examined from the point of view of article 85 of the treaty. Although the acquisition by one company of an equity interest in a competitor does not in itself constitute conduct restricting competition, such an acquisition may nevertheless serve as an instrument for influencing the commercial conduct of the companies in question so as to restrict or distort competition on the market on which they carry on business. That would be true in particular where, by the acquisition of a shareholding or through subsidiary clauses in the agreement, the investing company obtains legal or de facto control of the commercial conduct of the other company or where the agreement provides for commercial cooperation between the companies or creates a structure likely to be used for such cooperation, or where the agreement gives the investing company the possibility of reinforcing its position at a later stage and taking effective control of the other company. Every agreement must be assessed in its economic context and in particular in the light of the situation on the relevant market. Where the companies concerned are multinational corporations which carry on business on a worldwide scale, their relationships outside the community cannot be ignored, and it is necessary in particular to consider the possibility that the agreement in question may be part of a policy of global cooperation between them. The commission must exercise particular vigilance in the case of a stagnant and oligopolistic market, such as that for cigarettes.
3. Although as a general rule the court undertakes a comprehensive review of the question whether or not the conditions for the application of article 85*(1) of the treaty are met, its review of the commission’ s appraisals of complex economic matters is necessarily limited to verifying whether the relevant rules on procedure and on the statement of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers.
4. The acquisition by one company of a shareholding in a competing company can constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty only where that shareholding results in effective control of the other company or at least in some influence on its commercial policy.
5. Where the commission rejects an application pursuant to article 3 of regulation no 17/62, it need only state the reasons for which it did not consider it possible to hold that an infringement of the rules on competition had occurred, and it is not obliged to explain any differences in relation to the statement of objections, since that is a preparatory document containing assessments which are purely provisional in nature and are intended to define the scope of the administrative proceedings with regard to the companies against which they are brought, or to discuss all the matters of fact and of law which may have been dealt with during the administrative proceedings.

Citations:

Joined Cases 142 and 156/84, C-142/84

Jurisdiction:

European

Company, Judicial Review, Commercial

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.133897

Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child): Admn 20 Oct 2000

The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to a local authority to refuse to contribute to a child’s travelling expenses to a school named in his statement, on the basis that he might attend another school nearby which was not named as appropriate in his statement of special educational needs, or to make attendance conditional upon an agreement regarding payment by the parents of travelling expenses. The council’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable since they had failed to consider the changes in the child’s transport needs since the statement was made, and the parents’ financial circumstances. Any bar to a judicial review operated against the parents not the child. ‘the matter must go back to the authority which must reconsider its decision giving proper consideration to all the changes of circumstances and not taking into account of its belief that G.A.’s needs could be met at a local school not named in the statement.’

Judges:

Jack Heatson QC

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509

Citing:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Havering ex parte ‘K’ Admn 20-Aug-1997
A statement of special education needs stated in Part IV that the child’s mother was to be responsible for providing transport at her own expense. She subsequently became unable to maintain the transport provision due to her personal circumstances . .
CitedSurrey County Council v Ministry of Education 1953
The council had a scheme whereby for those who lived more than the walking distance from a school, only transport from their homes to the walking distance would be free. The scheme failed because transport has to be to and from school. A local . .
CitedRegina v Devon County Council, ex parte George HL 1989
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 . .
CitedRegina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte T QBD 29-Apr-1997
Financial constraints on a local authority may be is relevant as between a choice of provisions but not as to whether to make provision at all. The court is not the arbiter of what constitute suitable arrangements and the decision as to suitability . .
CitedRobert Duhaney White v London Borough of Ealing and Special Educational Needs Tribunal Admn 8-Jul-1997
Gilliatt The court heard three separate appeals from decisions of SENTs where parents wished their autistic children to attend the Boston Higashi School, USA which involved a residential placement. Fees to attend . .
CitedJenkins v Howells KBD 1949
A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the . .
CitedRe C (a minor) CA 1994
The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88513

Regina v Lichfield District Council and Another; Ex Parte Lichfield Securities Ltd: CA 30 Mar 2001

The rules required a judge at trial on a judicial review case to consider the issue of whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the case. Nevertheless, where this issue had already been fully argued at a preliminary hearing, the judge could properly exclude a further attempt to argue the point. The judge’s duties as case manager required him to consider whether new material was to be introduced, or a different aspect was to be put, some relevant matter had been overlooked by the first judge, or he had said that it might be reconsidered at trial.

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2001, Gazette 26-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Lichfield District Council Christopher John Nanscawen Williams and ex parte Lichfield Securities Limited Admn 1-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Planning

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88537

Regina v Flintshire County Council, Ex Parte Armstrong-Braun: CA 20 Feb 2001

A local council introduced a standing order to the effect that an item could not be placed on an agenda without being seconded. In doing so it had failed entirely to consider the fundamental effect this would have on democracy. Independent members and others seeking to be critical could find themselves unable to put unpopular matters before the council. Councillors represent particular areas and that one of the ways in which they are intended to exercise their function is by raising matters in council. The standing order prevented them from doing that. Such a rule might be introduced with sufficient safeguards and after appropriate qualification, but that did not apply here and the rule was set aside.

Judges:

Sedley, Schiemann LJJ, Blackburne J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-2001, [2001] BLGR 344, [2001] LGR 344, [2001] EWCA Civ 345, (2001) 3 LGLR 34

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Flintshire County Council ex parte Armstrong-Braun Admn 27-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoDirector of Public Prosecutions v Armstrong-Braun Admn 5-Oct-1998
A building site was subject to a requirement to move great crested newts before work could proceed. The defendant, a local councillor interfered to prevent a digger destroying the land until the newts had been moved. He appealed his conviction for . .

Cited by:

CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Constitutional, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88455

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer: QBD 19 Oct 1993

Parliamentary Commissioners decisions are reviewable, but range of the discretion given to him by the Act is very wide, and his decisions will only rarely be susceptible to review. He is answerable to Parliament.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jan-1994, Times 27-Oct-1993, Independent 26-Oct-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 621, [1993] EWHC Admin 3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967

Cited by:

CitedLegal and General Assurance Society Ltd v CCA Stationery Ltd ChD 12-Dec-2003
The claimant had managed a pension scheme for the respondent company. It now challenged a finding of maladministration of the scheme, with respect to the methods of calculation of discounts applicable to those leaving the scheme.
Held: Since . .
CitedNicholas Cavanagh Raymond Bhatt Frank Redmond v The Health Service Commissioner CA 15-Dec-2005
A parent had complained about the closure of a hospital unit which led to his daughter not receiving treatment. The Commissioner in her report commented adversely on the doctors involved. Both doctors and the parent sought judicial review of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87523

Regina v Chief Constable for Warwickshire and Others Ex Parte Fitzpatrick and Others: QBD 1 Oct 1997

Judicial Review is not the appropriate way to challenge the excessive nature of a search warrant issues by magistrates. A private law remedy is better. Jowitt J said: ‘Judicial review is not a fact finding exercise and it is an extremely unsatisfactory tool by which to determine, in any but the clearest of cases, whether there has been a seizure of material not permitted by a search warrant. In my judgment a person who complains of excessive seizure in breach of section 16(8) should not, save in such cases, seek his remedy by way of judicial review but should rely on his private law remedy when he will have a tribunal which will be able to hear evidence and make findings of fact unfettered by Wednesbury principles. In an appropriate case the court in a private law action is able to grant interlocutory relief on a speedy basis on well recognised principles so that in all but the clearest cases of a breach of section 16(8) judicial review has only disadvantages and no advantages when compared with the private law remedy.’
Any breach of section 15 or 16 renders the search and seizures unlawful.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Jowitt LJ

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 820, [1999] 1 WLR 564, [1998] 1 All ER 65, [1998] Crim LR 290

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15 16(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedReynolds v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1985
A search warrant had been obtained under the 1913 Act. The court considered the existence of a tort of obtaining a search warrant maliciously.
Waller LJ discussed the problem facing police officers when a large volume of material were to be . .
Not PreferredRegina v Longman QBD 1988
Lord Lane CJ expressed reservations as to the construction of this provision: whether the consequence of a breach of section 15 or section 16 or both would render a search of premises under a warrant unlawful and he expressed the tentative view, . .
CitedRegina v Central Criminal Court ex parte A J D Holdings Ltd CACD 14-Feb-1992
Nolan LJ said that the phrase used in section 15(6)(b), ‘so far as is practicable,’ is imprecise and that it may well be impossible to draw a clear line between what is and what is not practicable. . .
PreferredRegina v Chief Constable of the Lancashire Constabulary ex parte Parker Admn 2-Jan-1993
There was a two paged document headed ‘warrant to enter and search premises’ which set out all the information required by section 15(6)(a). It did not, however, on its face identify the articles or persons to be sought in subparagraph (b). That . .

Cited by:

CitedFaisaltex Ltd and Others v Lancashire Constabulary and Another QBD 24-Jul-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages saying that in executing a search warrant, the defendant had made excessive seizures of material. The claimants sought inspection by independent counsel of the materials seized to establish this in a manner . .
CitedBhatti and Others v Croydon Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 3-Feb-2010
The claimant challenged the valiity of search warrants used at his home. He said they were deficient in not including the information as required by the Act. The police said that they were in accordance with the Home Office guidance.
Held: . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
CitedFitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86351

Regina (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Mar 2001

The prisoner had been re-categorised and transferred to a higher category prison.
Held: A life sentence serving prisoner, who had served the tariff period, and was moving into the period of discretionary detention, was entitled to be informed of a change of his category, and the reasons for it, and be given opportunity to make representations about it. This would not prevent a move for operational reasons not involving such a change in category. Such a change of category would significantly affect his chances of release. Lord Woolf: ‘I have found the question of what should be the outcome of this appeal by no means easy to determine. I accept the importance of the prison service being able to make decisions which are operationally important without having to go through the technical requirements of providing opportunities for making representations. However, the rules of fairness and natural justice are flexible and not static; they are capable of developing not only in relation to the expectations of contemporary society, but also to meet proper operational requirements. The ability of the prison service to meet both their operational needs and the needs for prisoners to be treated fairly can usually be achieved within the panoply of the requirements of fairness. On the whole, the courts will require considerable persuasion that administrative convenience justifies a departure from the principles of fairness which would otherwise be appropriate in a particular situation. However, the arguments which are advanced by the Home Office in this case, as I understand them, are not only ones of administrative convenience. They refer to operational difficulties and operational problems which could undermine the security and discipline within the prison system.
It seems to me basic that a decision which is as important as the present decision to Mr Hirst should not be taken without giving him the opportunity to make representations and to have the matter properly considered as a consequence of his so doing. I think that there is some substance, but would not overvalue it, in the problem referred to by Lord Justice Simon Brown which arise in reconsidering a decision [paragraph 58 above]. However, regardless of that difficulty, it seems to me that a decision of this nature as a matter of fairness should not be taken until Mr Hirst had been fully involved. He should have been given a reasonable period to make representations before the decision was taken. He should have been given that opportunity after he had been told the grounds upon which it was appropriate to recategorise him.”

Judges:

Lord Woolf C.J

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2001, Gazette 03-May-2001, [2001] Prison Law Reports 147, [2001] EWCA Civ 378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Cawser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 5-Nov-2003
The claimant was serving a prison sentence for serious sexual offences. He would not be released until he had completed a sex offenders programme, but one was not made available, delaying his release.
Held: ‘The Secretary of State is not under . .
CitedPalmer, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Jul-2004
The prisoner had been sentenced for serious frauds, and was subject to a long sentence. He complained that the governor had amended his prison categorisation from D to B, resulting in the loss of chance to stay in an open prison without giving him . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v SP CA 21-Dec-2004
The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing, Prisons

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85975

Regina (Tshikangu) v Newham London Borough Council: QBD 15 Feb 2001

Where a party applying for judicial review had received the practical decision he sought from the defendant, but wished the review to go ahead as a test case, it was necessary and appropriate for him to seek the agreement first of the defendant, and then of the court. The court should proceed with such academic investigations only with great care, and in this case, had the claimant done as suggested, his leave to apply would have been revoked.

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 27-Apr-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 92

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Housing, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Housing

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86016

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
CitedPractice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
CitedLane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedIn re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
CitedIn re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Cited by:

See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See AlsoEastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See AlsoIn Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
CitedCooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
CitedCoke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546

Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling: QBD 8 Mar 1999

Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedCollier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
CitedMcKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not bindingIn Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131

Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another: HL 10 Feb 1995

The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. The purpose of the rule of procedural exclusivity was stated to be prevention of an abuse of the process of the court, and that purpose is of prime importance in determining the reach of the general rule.
Lord Slynn said: ‘The recognition by Lord Diplock that exceptions exist to the general rule may introduce some uncertainty but it is a small price to pay to avoid the over-rigid demarcation between procedures reminiscent of earlier disputes as to the forms of action and of disputes as to the competence of jurisdictions apparently encountered in civil law countries where a distinction between public and private law has been recognised . . The experience of other countries seems to show that the working out of this distinction is not always an easy matter. In the absence of the single procedure allowing all remedies-quashing, injunctive and declaratory relief, damages-some flexibility as to the use of different procedures is necessary. It has to be borne in mind that the overriding question is whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

Independent 16-Feb-1995, Times 10-Feb-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 48, [1995] UKHL 12, [1996] 1 All ER 575, [1995] CLC 266, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:

Appealed toMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedSteed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
CitedValentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83655

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman: QBD 2008

The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it.

Citations:

[2008] 1 WLR 2171

Cited by:

CitedKenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567244

Ealing Corporation v Jones: CA 1959

An enforcement notice served by the local planning authority was quashed by an inferior court. The authority sought to appeal pursuant to provisions which allowed a right of appeal to ‘any person aggrieved’.
Held: Assuming the words ‘any person’ were capable of including a local planning authority, the authority in question was not a ‘person aggrieved’ as no financial or legal burden had been placed upon it as a result of the decision. If parliament had intended the local planning authority to have a right of appeal, it would have said so clearly and used words which placed the matter beyond all doubt.
Donovan J said: ‘I think it is true that if one came to the expression without reference to judicial decision one would say that the words ‘person aggrieved by a decision’ mean no more than a person who had had the decision given against him; but the courts have decided that the words mean more than that, and have held that the word ‘aggrieved’ is not synonymous in this context with the word ‘dissatisfied’. The word `aggrieved’ connotes some legal grievance, for example, a deprivation of something, an adverse effect on the title to something, and so on.’
Lord Parker CJ said that it is easier to say what will not constitute a person aggrieved than it is to say what ‘person aggrieved’ includes.

Judges:

Donovan J, Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1959] 1 QB 384, [1959] 2 WLR 194, [1959] 1 All ER 286

Cited by:

CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470544

Bone v Mental Health Review Tribunal: 1985

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.

Judges:

Nolan J

Citations:

[1985] 3 All ER 330

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.442730

Regina v Blandford Justices: CA 1990

The applicant had been charged with public order offences and had been remanded in custody by the Magistrates’ Court. He immediately commenced judicial review proceedings on the grounds that he was charged with an offence which was not punishable with a custodial sentence. A few days later he pleaded guilty to the offence and was released but continued with the judicial review proceedings. The Divisional Court had granted his application for judicial review and the Justices appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held: As a preliminary point, the proceedings were a criminal cause or matter.
Taylor LJ said: ‘The application for judicial review was an application to the Divisional Court to review a decision of an inferior court in criminal proceedings then still in progress and was clearly an application in a criminal cause or matter. But Mr. Sankey says that, by the time the application was heard, the Divisional Court’s judgment was not in a criminal cause or matter since the justices had made their final order. He sought to rationalise this approach by saying that, once the criminal proceedings were concluded in the magistrates’ court, the decision of the Divisional Court could not affect their course and was not, therefore, in the cause or matter ‘at whatever stage of the proceedings.’ But, once the applicant had been granted bail the day after the challenged decision, any review by the Divisional Court of the challenged decision would not have affected the course of the criminal proceedings even if that decision had been made at some later ‘stage of the proceedings’ and before they were concluded. If the Divisional Court’s decision was not in a criminal cause or matter, in what type of proceeding was it made? It cannot have been a decision in vacuo and, for my part, I see no basis in principle or authority for attributing such a chameleon character to a cause or matter as to make it change from criminal to civil simply because the proceedings are concluded or because the review of the decision in such cause or matter may be too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. In my opinion, the judgment of the Divisional Court in the present case was made in a criminal cause or matter.’

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1940

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAlexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.412281

Allen v West Yorkshire Probation Service: QBD 20 Feb 2001

Where a defendant felt that a sentence imposed by magistrates was wrong, he should take the issue to the Crown Court by way of appeal. It was wrong to try to deal with it by way of judicial review or appeal by way of case stated. As much as anything else the greater delay would lead to additional difficulties in carrying out any sentence.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77746

Regina v Huntingdon District Council, Ex parte Cowan: QBD 1984

The plaintiff sought judicial review of a refusal of a local authority to grant a liquor licence and a music and dancing licence. Review was sought despite a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.
Held: If other means of redress are conveniently and effectively available to a party they ought ordinarily to be used before resort to judicial review.
Glidewell J stated: ‘As I have said, the relief sought is discretionary. Where there is an alternative remedy available but judicial review is sought, then in my judgment the court should always ask itself whether the remedy that is sought in the court, or the alternative remedy which is available to the applicant by way of appeal, is the most effective and convenient, in other words, which of them will prove to be the most effective and convenient in all the circumstances, not merely for the applicant, but in the public interests. In exercising discretion as to whether or not to grant relief, that is a major factor to be taken into account.’ and ‘What I am being asked to deal with is a matter which affects the conduct by Local Authorities throughout the country of their functions under the legislation.’

Judges:

Glidewell J

Citations:

[1984] 1 WLR 501

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
CitedValentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.239042

Nichol v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 1988

Gateshead, confronted by a falling birth rate and therefore an inability to sustain a viable sixth form in all its secondary schools, decided to set up sixth form colleges instead. Local parents had failed to establish that Gateshead’s prior consultation had been unlawful, and appealed.
Held: Gateshead had made clear what the other options were. The appeal failed.
The court described how it was to exercise any discretion it had to give relief on an application for judicial review: ‘The court has an overall discretion as to whether to grant relief or not. In considering how that discretion should be exercised, the court is entitled to have regard to such matters as the following: (1) The nature and importance of the flaw in the challenged decision. (2) The conduct of the applicant. (3) The effect on administration of granting relief.’ It permissible for an authority to have a preferred option (Connor LJ).

Judges:

Taylor LJ, Connor LJ

Citations:

(1988) 87 LGR 435

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBarwise, Regina (on the Application Of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Admn 8-Jul-2004
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to remove his status of police constable. He had been absent from work with stress for a long time. He had failed to attend appointments on police premises.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Worcestershire Health Council (Arising From the Complaint of Kidderminster and District Community Health Council) CA 28-May-1999
The respondent had planned to downgrade a local hospital, closing the accident and emergency department. This was a renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the plan. The health authority initially developed and had before them seven . .
CitedMoseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Local Government

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200296

Regina (Magon) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham: CA 7 May 1998

Mummery LJ refused permission to seek Judicial Review on the ground that the case stated procedure is the appropriate one available to question the correctness of a liability order made by the Magistrates’ Court.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2004] RA 269

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.567245

Regina v Regional Office of the Employment Tribunals (London North), Ex p Sojorin (unreported): CA 21 Feb 2000

The Employment Appeal Tribunal is immune from judicial review.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 21 February 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Judicial Review

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.442731

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.

Citations:

Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.163155

Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow: HL 25 Jul 1955

The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only reasonable conclusion’ contradicted that decision.
The House set out principles for establishing that decisions of a commissioner were ones of law, and were reviewable by an appellate court. Whether facts as found or admitted fall on one side or the other of some conceptual line drawn by the law is a question of fact.
Lord Radcliffe said that ‘Perversity’ in a decision means that ‘the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. In those circumstances, too, the court must intervene. It has no option but to assume that there has been some misconception of the law and that this has been responsible for the determination.’
Viscount Simonds said: ‘For it is universally conceded that, although it is a pure finding of fact, it may be set aside on grounds which have been stated in various ways but are, I think, fairly summarized by saying that the court should take that course if it appears that the commissioners have acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained.’
Lord Radcliffe criticised the tendency of courts to treat questions as ‘pure questions of fact’, so as to exclude review: ‘As I see it, the reason why the courts do not interfere with the Commissioners’ findings or determinations when they really do involve nothing but questions of fact is not any supposed advantage in the Commissioners of greater experience in the matters of business or any other matters. The reason is simply that by the system that has been set up the Commissioners are the first tribunal to try an appeal, and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice their decisions can only be upset on appeal if they have been positively wrong in law. The Court is not a second opinion where there is a reasonable ground for the first. But there is no reason to make a mystery about the subjects that Commissioners deal with or to invite the courts to impose any exceptional restraint on themselves because they are dealing with cases that arise out of facts found by the Commissioners. Their duty is no more than to examine those facts with a decent respect for the tribunal appealed from and if they think that the only reasonable conclusion on the facts found is inconsistent with the determination come to, to say so without more ado.’ and ‘I do not think that it much matters whether this state of affairs is described as one in which there is no evidence to support the determination or as one in which the evidence is inconsistent with and contradictory of the determination, or as one in which the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination. Rightly understood, each phrase propounds the same test. For my part, I prefer the last of the three …’ As to the commissioners findings of fact: ‘Their duty is no more than to examine those facts with a decent respect for the tribunal appealed from and if they think that the only reasonable conclusion on the facts found is inconsistent with the determination come to, to say so without more ado.’
HL Income Tax, Schedule D-Purchase and sale of cotton spinning plant – Isolated transaction – Whether adventure in nature of trade.

Judges:

Lord Radcliffe, Viscount Simonds

Citations:

[1956] AC 14, [1955] 3 All ER 48, [1955] 36 Tax Cas 207, [1955] UKHL 3, [1955] UKHL TC – 36 – 207, 36 TC 207

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRowland v Boyle (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 11-Apr-2003
An accountant was accused of having made fraudulent claims for interest relief. He appealed from the special commissioners.
Held: Where the taxpayer was a professional person of previous good character, the standard of proof required before a . .
CitedCamas Plc v HM Inspector of Taxes ChD 7-Jul-2003
An investment company sought to set against its liability to corporation tax, the various costs of taking over another company. They argued that as an investment company these were not costs of the purchase and could be set against tax.
Held: . .
CitedMoyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
CitedNew Angel Court Ltd v Adam (Inspector of Taxes) ChD 25-Jul-2003
The taxpayer company employed a subsidiary company through which it conducted its trade in land. It then sought to represent the profits from that subsidiary within its own accounts as trading profits for corporation tax purposes. The commissioner . .
CitedBiogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
CitedClark v Oxfordshire Health Authority CA 18-Dec-1997
A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.
Sir . .
CitedRegina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
CitedArnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd ChD 4-Mar-2005
The revenue appealed against an order by the general commissioners to grant to the taxpayer, a construction industry subcontractor, a fresh exemption certficate where he had been consistently late in submitting tax and NI payments of several . .
CitedSony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
CitedTempleton (Inspector of Taxes) v Transform Shop Office and Bar Fitters Ltd ChD 15-Jul-2005
The contractor had not met its liabilities to pay PAYE. The general commissioners had nevertheless granted a construction industry certificate under sections 561 and 565, having found an informal agreement to allow late payments.
Held: No tax . .
CitedWisdom v Chamberlain (Inspector of Taxes) CA 8-Nov-1968
The taxpayer, a comic actor, bought silver bullion hoping it would act as a hedge against a possible deflation of the pound. The revenue sought to tax his profits on sale under Schedule D. He argued that the money, being from one transaction, did . .
CitedMatthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns and Fire Authority and others HL 1-Mar-2006
Retained or part-time firefighters sought parity of working conditions with full time firefighters.
Held: The retained firefighters’ appeal succeeded (Lords Carswell and Mance dissenting). The test was whether the part-time and full time . .
CitedYuen v The Royal Hong Kong Golf Club PC 28-Jul-1997
(Hong Kong) The applicant was dismissed as a golf caddie after nine years. The Club denied that he had ever been an employee. He was issued by the club with a number, a uniform and a locker. Caddying work was allocated to available caddies in strict . .
CitedLee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung PC 8-Mar-1990
Deciding Whether person was an employee
(Hong Kong) The Board considered the conclusion that the applicant stone mason was not an employee of the defendant: ‘even if I leaned towards the opposite conclusion, it would nevertheless be quite impossible for me to say that no tribunal . .
CitedArnold (Inspector of Taxes) v G Con Ltd CA 12-May-2006
The tax payer company had failed to send in pay as you earn and NI returns for three years. The commissioners had found this to be only a minor failure and that the company was entitled to an exemption certificate under the construction industry . .
CitedRegina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd HL 1993
One bus company took over another, giving it an effective monopoly within the region. The Commission considered that the area involved was sufficiently substantial to cause concern that it may operate against the public interest. At first instance . .
CitedH, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
CitedGaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd ChD 21-Jan-2008
The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support . .
CitedMcKnight (Inspector of Taxes) v Sheppard HL 18-Jun-1999
The taxpayer sought to set off against tax some pounds 200,000 spent defending professional disciplinary proceedings. The House was asked whether this was ‘money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade.’
Held: . .
CitedD’Souza v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 15-Oct-1992
The police went to detain the appellant under the 1983 Act. To do so they entered the property against her wishes. She resisted detention, and now appealed her conviction for assaulting the Police officers in the execution of their duty, saying that . .
CitedSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
CitedGerrard v Staffordshire Potteries Ltd CA 2-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was injured when working for the defendants spraying glaze onto jars. A small foreign body was blown into her eye. She said that no eye protection had been suuplied as required by the regulations.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Smallwood and Another CA 8-Jul-2010
The taxpayers had set up trusts which they said were based in Mauritius allowing them to claim double taxation relief. The Revenue had issued closure notices, confirmed by the SPCT, but overturned by the High Court. The Revenue appealed, saying that . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v A M Brander As Exec of The Will of The Late Fourth Earl of Balfour UTTC 16-Aug-2010
UTTC Inheritance tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Business property relief Replacement property – Deceased having liferent interest in family estate – Deceased declared to be fee simple proprietor of the . .
CitedDaejan Investments Ltd v Benson and Others CA 28-Jan-2011
The landlord had set out to refurbish the building occupied by the defendant tenants. They began a consultation process for the repairs, but failed to complete it, and the tenants objected. The landlords now appealed against rejection of their . .
CitedThe Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Crawford and Another ChNI 4-May-2016
The AG sought leave to appeal against a decision by the tribunal for the removal of a trustee of a police charity.
Held: Permission was given. The decision of the tribunal was open to proper criticism. The appeal raised several important . .
CitedLancashire County Council, Regina (on The Application of) v SSEFRA and Another SC 11-Dec-2019
Two appeals as to the circumstances in which the concept of ‘statutory incompatibility’ will defeat an application to register land as a town or village green where the land is held by a public authority for statutory purposes. In the first case, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.181055

Regina v Cheshire County Council ex parte C: 1998

Citations:

[1998] ELR 66

Cited by:

CitedDM v Secretary of State for the Home Department SCS 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had applied for asylum saying that she was Zimbabwean and had fled after her husband, a member of the opposition had been arrested and she had been threatened with being ‘disappeared.’ The tribunal had rejected her claim as false, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.264029

Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Schemet: QBD 1993

The court considered the withdrawal of a policy whereby the local authority paid travelling expenses for the attendance of pupils at denominational schools outside the area.
Held: Relief was granted. The authority should have consulted those affected.

Judges:

Roch J

Citations:

(1993) 91 LGR 425, [1994] ELR 89

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina on Application of Dinev and Others v Westminster City Council Admn 24-Oct-2000
Street artists had operated in Leicester Square for many years without either licenses or being prosecuted. The respondent introduced a scheme to regulate them, and the applicants sought to challenge it by way of judicial review, alleging a failure . .
CitedRe C (a minor) CA 1994
The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the . .
CitedIn Re S CA 1995
Parents wanted their children to attend English middle schools in Wales. The Court dealt with the argument that the objective suitability of the nearer school had to be considered by the court on judicial review. Alternatively, it was argued that it . .
CitedJones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Judicial Review, Education

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190068

Regina on the Application of Prison Officers’ Association v the Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 10 Nov 2003

The applicant trades union complained that the employer had failed to consult it before introducing new policies which had effect of breaching a legally binding agreement with the Association.
Held: The existing agreement provided for any dispute to be referred to arbitration. That had not occurred, and the judicial review was refused.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Newman

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2662 (Admin)

Employment, Judicial Review

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187696

Assets Co Ltd v Bain’s Trustees: 1902

A plea of mora may be sustained in an application for judicial review, but unreasonable delay is not of itself sufficient to found a successful plea: ‘But in order to lead to such a plea receiving effect, there must in my judgment have been excessive or unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, coupled with a material alteration of circumstances, to the detriment of the other party’.

Judges:

Lord President (Kinross)

Citations:

(1904) 6 F692

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSD, Re Application for Judicial Review OHCS 2-Oct-2003
Parents sought judicial review of a decision not to open a Record of Needs for their child. A report said that the child was dyslexic. The applicants said his condition had not improved after an earlier request to open a record had been refused.
CitedCameron and Another v Hughes Dowdall SCS 28-Oct-2008
The pursuer sought damages for negligence by his solicitors. They had sold their business, but the solicitors were said to have failed to include in their contracts clauses necessary for their protection. The defenders claimed that the action should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Judicial Review

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186633

Regina (Vetterlein) v Hampshire County Council: Admn 2001

The claimants challenged a planning permission granted to a waste disposal site, saying that it violated their article 8 rights.
Held: The court asked whether there was reasonable and convincing evidence that the claimants quality of life would be so directly effected by the incinerator proposal as to engage article 8, ‘The answer to that question has to be no, even if one strictly applies the WHO guideline, ignoring the fact that it is only a guideline and not a mandatory requirement, and that a breach of the guideline does not automatically mean that there is serious pollution, much less that there is any significant danger to health.
The claimant’s is no more than a generalised concern as to the effects of the incinerator in terms of increased nitrogen dioxide emissions. Such generalised environmental concerns do not engage article 8, which is concerned with an individual’s right to enjoy life in his own home.’
Sulivan J considered the power of a court hearing an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings to determine the issue immediately having heard the applications: ‘I am satisfied that all the arguments open to the claimants on matters of fact and law have been placed before the Court. In the circumstances it would be wholly artificial to consider the by now academic question: is the claimant’s case arguable? Having heard the arguments I am in a position to determine the substantive application for judicial review on its merits.’

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 560

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAsselbourg v Luxembourg ECHR 1995
The applicants complained that the grant of licences for a steelworks would result in pollution, release of toxic gases and noise, and that the grant of the licences would infringe their article 8 rights. The court rejected the application ‘From the . .

Cited by:

CitedBushell and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Licensing Justices and others Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimants objected to a forced transfer of an unused justices on-line for the benefit of the licencee applicants. The licensees had first been refused a licence for certain premises, but then requested and were given transfer of an obsolete . .
CitedLow and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
CitedSavva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Licensing, Judicial Review

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186027

Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd: HL 1993

One bus company took over another, giving it an effective monopoly within the region. The Commission considered that the area involved was sufficiently substantial to cause concern that it may operate against the public interest. At first instance the judge held the area was not sufficiently large to justify a concern. On appeal the case was reversed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. On the true construction of the phrase ‘a substantial part’ it meant not necessarily a large part, but rather a part of considerable importance and character.
Lord Mustill said: ‘The courts have repeatedly warned against the dangers of taking an inherently imprecise word, and by redefining it thrusting on it a spurious degree of precision.’ and
‘The respondents say that the two stages of the Commission’s inquiry involved wholly different tasks. Once the Commission reached the stage of deciding on public interest and remedies it was exercising a broad judgment whose outcome could be overturned only on the ground of irrationality. The question of jurisdiction, by contrast, is a hard-edged question. There is no room for legitimate disagreement. Either the Commission had jurisdiction or it had not. The fact that it is quite hard to discover the meaning of section 64(3) makes no difference. It does have a correct meaning, and one meaning alone; and once this is ascertained a correct application of it to the facts of the case will always yield the same answer. If the Commission has reached a different answer it is wrong, and the court can and must intervene.
I agree with this argument in part, but only in part. Once the criterion for a judgment has been properly understood, the fact that it was formerly part of a range of possible criteria from which it was difficult to choose and on which opinions might legitimately differ becomes a matter of history. The judgment now proceeds unequivocally on the basis of the criterion as ascertained. So far, no room for controversy. But this clear-cut approach cannot be applied to every case, for the criterion so established may itself be so imprecise that different decision-makers, each acting rationally, might reach differing conclusions when applying it to the facts of a given case. In such a case the court is entitled to substitute its own opinion for that of the person to whom the decision has been entrusted only if the decision is so aberrant that it cannot be classed as rational: Edwards v Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14. The present is such a case. Even after eliminating inappropriate senses of ‘substantial’ one is still left with a meaning broad enough to call for the exercise of judgment rather than an exact quantitative measurement. Approaching the matter in this light I am quite satisfied that there is no ground for interference by the court, since the conclusion at which the commission arrived was well within the permissible field of judgment.’

Judges:

Lord Mustill

Citations:

[1993] 1 WLR 23, [1993] 1 All ER 289

Statutes:

Fair Trading Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .

Cited by:

CitedNorwich and Peterborough Building Society, Regina (on the Application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd Admn 14-Nov-2002
The Ombudsman had found that the applicant had unfairly failed to notify its customers of the availability of better accounts, once it discontinued accounts of one type. The Society appealed saying that the finding of unfairness arose from matters . .
CitedRegina on the Application of T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd, Vodafone Ltd, Orange Personal Communication Services Ltd v The Competition Commission, the Director-General of Telecommunications Admn 27-Jun-2003
The applicants sought to challenge a proposed scheme regulating the prices of telephone calls.
Held: The principle objection was to termination charges, charges on calls between networks. The present charges were greater than the actual cost, . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
CitedAl-Sweady and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Defence Admn 2-Oct-2009
The claimant’s son had died whilst in the custody of the British Armed Forces in Iraq. His uncle now claimed that his human rights had been infringed. The case ‘raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR because if the . .
CitedSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another (2) SC 15-Feb-2012
The claimant sought release of a report prepared by the respondent as to its coverage of the Arab/Israel conflict partly for journalistic purposes, and partly for compliance.
Held: The appeal failed. Where the report was prepared even if only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Licensing, Judicial Review

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183446

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Bindel: 2001

A women’s group objected to the visit to the United Kingdom of Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist, so that he could earn money here by appearing in the boxing ring.
Held: Justice for Women did not have arguable grounds for interfering with the Secretary of State’s decision to grant Tyson a temporary visa to enter the country, not that they did not have a sufficient interest to bring the proceedings.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2001] Imm AR 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.447659

Regina v Education Committee of Blackpool Borough Council ex parte Taylor: 1999

The court emphasised that a party considering challenging by way of a judicial review a local government decision should not first await the outcome of a reference to the Local Government Ombudsman, since he has no power to set aside the decision.

Citations:

[1999] ELR 237

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Dec-2009
The deceased had been detained as a mental patient and supported after her release, by her family financially. Her representatives now said that the respondent had failed in its obligation to provide support for no charge. The authority said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Education, Local Government

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.384471

Regina v North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses: CA 28 Apr 2000

The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial review of the first approval. He argued that the delay was overborne by the importance now attached to such procedures.
Held: The application for review was refused. The considerable delay had allowed many millions of pounds to be spent, and further money would be spent taking down what had been built.

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v North West Leicestershire District Council QBD 29-Sep-1999
The applicant sought review several years after a decision allowing an extension of a runway, having come to be affected by the increase in noise. She said the decision should only have been made after an assessment of the consequential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87450

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1): QBD 4 May 1993

The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor’s proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of ‘carried entering UK’ can include clothing being worn, but caution to be used by the courts not to extend the meaning unnecessarily.

Citations:

Independent 04-May-1993, Ind Summary 20-Mar-1995, Times 05-May-1993

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 78(2), Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Law Society CA 11-Aug-1993
Lord Chancellor is free to impose a fee scheme if it accords with the words of the Act. The standard fees regulations for magistrates Courts works are within the Lord Chancellor’s powers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Customs and Excise, Legal Aid, Costs, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87220

Regina v Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others: CA 22 Aug 2000

Although the Court of Appeal did not have power to hear a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review under the new rules where the application had been lodged in March 1999 before the new rules came into effect, the court could still apply the over-riding objective to allow it to hear the application as an appeal against the refusal f leave to appeal.

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 59.14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85600

Regina v Winchester Crown Court ex parte P B (A Minor): QBD 8 Jan 1999

A Crown Court judge’s decision to allow naming of a youth appearing before it, was a matter for the judge’s discretion, and was not susceptible to judicial review proceedings. Such orders are analogous to contempt orders, tending to influence the trial.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39(1), Contempt of Court Act 1981 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Media, Children

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85615

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed: CA 7 Sep 2000

A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant’s application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.

Citations:

Times 07-Sep-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Judicial Review, Media

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85517

Regina v South Bank University, Ex Parte Coggeran: CA 19 Sep 2000

The applicant had been unable to complete her vocational course, after pregnancy related illness and absence. She was not allowed an extension of time to complete the course, and claimed she had been discriminated against. A judge granting a judicial review of the decision of the University was wrong to pronounce on the availability of county court proceedings. Nevertheless, the claim of sex discrimination against a University could not be brought in the employment tribunal, but must be in the County Court, which would have the powers of the High Court to make orders.

Citations:

Times 19-Sep-2000, Gazette 19-Oct-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85562

Ex P Nacion: CA 3 Feb 1999

It was appropriate to apply to review a failure by a local authority to consider exercising its discretion to support a housing applicant pending an appeal, but not where the authority considered but rejected exercising its discretion.

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80407

Ex Parte P: CA 31 Mar 1998

Where statutory alternative of redress available through ministers discretion, that should be used rather than judicial review: ‘When both sides agreed that information should be kept from the public that was when the court had to be most vigilant.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA 10-Jun-1998
Limitation on Making of Anonymity Orders
A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80408

Ex Parte Nacion: CA 17 Mar 1999

It was appropriate to apply to judicially review a failure by a local authority to consider exercising its discretion to support a housing applicant pending an appeal, but not where the authority considered but rejected the opportunity to exercise its discretion.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Mar-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80418

Regina v Herrod, ex parte Leeds City District Council: CA 1976

Lord Denning MR described the game bingo: ‘I expect that everybody knows ordinary bingo. It is played at bazaars, sales of work [sic: in [1976] 1 All ER 273, at 279c, the phrase is ‘places of work’], and so forth, for small prizes and is perfectly lawful. Now prize bingo is like ordinary bingo, but played with sophisticated apparatus. Instead of cards with numbers on them, there are dials facing the players. A player puts in a coin (5p for two cards). Thereupon two dials light up showing numbers corresponding to two cards. When the game starts, instead of someone drawing a number out of a hat, a machine throws a ball into the air. A gaily dressed lady plucks one of them and calls out the number. If it is one of the numbers on the dial, the player crosses it out by pulling a cover over it. If he gets all his numbers crossed out correctly before the other players, he gets a prize. This is obviously a lottery or a game of chance, but it is not a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is not ‘provided by means of the machine’ but means of the gay lady: see section 26(2) of the Gaming Act 1968.
In some of these premises there are also some ‘one-armed bandits.’ These are gaming machines. The player puts in a coin. This enables him to pull a handle to forecast a result. Cylinders revolve and give an answer. If he succeeds, he gets the winnings. If he fails, he loses his money. This is undoubtedly a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is provided by means of a machine: see section 26(1) of the Act of 1968 and Capper v. Baldwin [1965] 2 QB 53.’
Lord Denning MR said: ‘If a person comes to the High Court seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Crown Court – or any other tribunal for that matter-he should act promptly and before the other party has taken any step on the faith of the decision. Else he may find that the High Court will refuse him a remedy. If he has been guilty of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side’.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1976] QB 540

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc CA 30-Oct-2013
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.589259

Regina v Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council: Admn 23 Jun 1997

Judicial review out of time against planning decision was not allowed because of the need for public administration to proceed.

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 585

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council CA 23-Jul-1998
Planning authority could not reserve matters where outline approval given under General Development Order. A three year delay between the decision, and the application for judicial review was an undue delay defeating that application. Undue delay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Planning

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.137530

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably

The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a declaration that the conditions were ineffective.
Held: Parliament had given to the local authority a discretion as to the conditions for the licence. That discretion might be exercised in different ways according to honestly and reasonably held opinion. It was not the court’s job to substitute its own opinion for that of the local authority.
Greene MR said: ‘the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably.’ Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.’ and ‘The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account. Once that question is answered in favour of the local authority, it may be still possible to say that, although the local authority have kept within the four corners of the matters which they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the court can interfere. The power of the court to interfere in each case is not as an appellate authority to override a decision of the local authority, but as a judicial authority which is concerned, and concerned only, to see whether the local authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which Parliament has confided in them.’

Judges:

Greene MR, Somervell LJ and Singleton J

Citations:

[1947] 2 All ER 680, [1948] 1 KB 223, 1947 WL 10584, (1948) 92 SJ 26, [1948] LJR 190, [1948] 45 LGR 635, (1948) 112 JP 55, 63 TLR 623, [1947] EWCA Civ 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sunday Entertainments Act 1932, Cinematograph Act 1909

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTheatre de Luxe (Halifax) LD v Gledhill KBD 1915
The company appealed a condition which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema. The condition was that ‘Children under fourteen years of age shall not be allowed to enter into or be in the licensed premises after the hour of 9 p.m. . .
CitedLondon County Council v Bermondsey Bioscope Co 1911
. .
CitedHarman v Butt 1944
A condition imposed on a cinema license not allowing children under a certain age was intra vires the Act. The licence to open on Sundays originated in a representation by the commanding officer of forces stationed in the neighbourhood.
Held: . .
CitedRex v Burnley Justices ex parte Longmore 1916
Where unreasonable conditions have been imposed on a licence, the party claiming to be aggrieved has the right to take the issue to the court. . .
CitedRex v London County Counci, ex parte London and Provincial Electric Theatres LD 1915
. .
CitedEllis v Dubowski 1921
A complaint was made that the local authority had added an unlawful condition to a licence it had granted.
Held: The illegal element which the authority had imported into the conditions imposed consisted of a delegation of their powers to the . .
CitedRoberts v Hopwood HL 1925
The district auditor for Poplar Council had surcharged council members for making payments of a minimum wage of andpound;4 a week to their lowest grade of workers. This was notwithstanding that the cost of living had fallen during the year from 176% . .

Cited by:

CitedPeregrine Fixed Income Ltd v Robinson Department Store Public Co Ltd ComC 18-May-2000
The claimant sought the determination of the court as to the interpretation of parts of a currency swap and derivatives agreement. Upon termination of the contract, it provided means to calculate the balances due between the parties, and the . .
CitedRegina v Ullah CACD 3-Nov-1999
Counsel, in a trial alleging an indecent assault, had failed to raise with the jury the contents of an illegally taped conversation between the complainant and one of her witnesses encouraging perjury.
Held: The defect in counsel’s conduct of . .
AppliedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman QBD 30-Mar-1988
The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international . .
CitedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedRegina (Goodman and Another) v Lewisham London Borough Council CA 14-Feb-2003
Claimants challenged the grant of planning consent for the construction of a storage and distribution facility without first undertaking an environmental impact assessment.
Held: The local authority had concluded that the project could not be . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
ExplainedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Pro-life Alliance HL 15-May-2003
The Alliance was a political party seeking to air its party election broadcast. The appellant broadcasters declined to broadcast the film on the grounds that it was offensive, being a graphical discussion of the processes of abortion.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others QBD 7-Jun-1995
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 . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina v Same Ex Parte Grady Etc CA 6-Nov-1995
A ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces was not irrational, and the challenge to the ban failed. The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more . .
CitedWandsworth London Borough Council v Winder HL 1985
Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the . .
CitedJoseph v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 24-Nov-2003
The defendant had given a specimen of breath over the minimum, but below 5omg, and accordingly he was to be allowed to give a specimen of blood or urine. The choice was the officers using a wide discretion. That discretion was still to be exercised . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
CitedRegina (Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary) v Police Appeals Tribunal QBD 2-Feb-2004
The constable was disciplined. The Police Appeals Tribunal ordered his re-instatement. The Chief constable complained that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in not limiting itself to a review.
Held: The task of the tribunal was to . .
AppliedRegina v Norfolk County Council, ex parte M QBD 1989
The plaintiff worked as a plumber. His work took him to a private children’s home. An allegation of sexual abuse was made against him by a 13 year old child. She had made other claims against other men which had proved to be false. He was released . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
CitedLondon Borough of Newham v Khatun, Zeb and Iqbal CA 24-Feb-2004
The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants.
Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to . .
AppliedRegina v Secretary of State for Trade, Ex parte Anderson Strathclyde Plc QBD 1983
A proposed takeover had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the 1973 Act. A majority of the Commission recommended against the takeover. The Deputy (acting instead of the Secretary who had an interest) overruled the . .
CitedHall v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 17-Dec-2004
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been . .
CitedCalgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State ex parte Khan CA 4-Apr-1984
The Secretary of State had refused an entry clearance for a child to be allowed into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the applicant, but had done so upon grounds nowhere mentioned in a Home Office circular letter apparently setting . .
ExplainedRegina v Her Majesty’s Coroner for Exeter and East Devon ex parte Palmer CA 10-Dec-1997
The deceased died in Dartmoor prison. He had been held in seclusion. When visited he was said to have attacked the guards. He was restrained until a body belt could be brought. The period of restraint exceeded the maximum recommended, and the . .
CitedLymington Marina Ltd v MacNamara and others ChD 4-Apr-2006
The claimant marina had been constructed with financial assistance from debenture holders who in return were given low cost licences. The claimant sought to refuse to the defendant debenture holders the right to sub-licence their rights to berth . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) Admn 11-May-2006
The claimant on behalf of himself and other islanders sought a declaration that the 2004 Order was unlawful. The islands had been emptied of people in 1973 and before in order to allow use of the islands as military bases. He had enjoyed a right to . .
CitedDr D, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health CA 19-Jul-2006
The doctor complained of the use of Alert letters where he was suspected of sexual abuse of patients, but the allegations were unsubstantiated. He complained particularly that he had been acquitted in a criminal court and then also by the . .
CitedBradley and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 21-Feb-2007
The claimant had lost his company pension and complained that the respondent had refused to follow the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid.
Held: The court should not rely on . .
CitedO’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedLondon Borough of Wandsworth v Allison CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of . .
CitedPadfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food HL 14-Feb-1968
Exercise of Ministerial Discretion
The Minister had power to direct an investigation in respect of any complaint as to the operation of any marketing scheme for agricultural produce. Milk producers complained about the price paid by the milk marketing board for their milk when . .
CitedCastorina v Chief Constable of Surrey CA 10-Jun-1988
Whether an officer had reasonable cause to arrest somebody without a warrant depended upon an objective assessment of the information available to him, and not upon his subjective beliefs. The court had three questions to ask (per Woolf LJ): ‘(a) . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedWheeler v Leicester City Council; In re Wheeler and others HL 25-Jul-1985
The Council opposed sporting links with South Africa. The local rugby club failed to denounce apartheid and did not seek to dissuade three of its players touring with the national side. The Court of Appeal had refused judicial review of the . .
CitedCentral Bedfordshire Council v Housing Action Zone Ltd, Taylor and Others; Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening CA 23-Jun-2009
The authority had granted a lease to a housing society who had in turn granted the occupants’ leases. A successor then revoked the head lease. The occupiers appealed against possession orders, saying that they had come to acquire article 8 rights in . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedFitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
CitedPadda v Regina CACD 12-Dec-2013
The defendant had been convicted of supplying drugs, had had a confiscation made and had paid out under it. The prosecution sought a restraint order pending re-assessment. A further confiscation order was made. The defendant appealed, saying that . .
CitedRegina v Johal CACD 19-Apr-2013
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order made on his conviction for possession of a Class B controlled drug. There had been considerable delays in the completion of the process, and it had exceeded the two year limit. The appellant argued . .
AppliedCVG Siderurgicia del Orinoco SA v London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited ‘The Vainqueur Jose’ 1979
The plaintiff sought to claim under the rules of the P and I club of which it was a member. After defining the risks in respect of which members were to be indemnified, the rules made the following proviso in Rule 8(k): ‘A member shall at the . .
CitedYoussef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 27-Jan-2016
An Egyptian national, had lived here since 1994. He challenged a decision by the Secretary of State,as a member of the committee of the United Nations Security Council, known as the Resolution 1267 Committee or Sanctions Committee. The committee . .
CitedAberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .
CitedRegina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd 1974
A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review, Licensing, Local Government

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.179730

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd: 1974

A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy . . An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used . I would, however, define a proper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law . . it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 720, [1974] 2 All ER 643, [1974] 2 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.471207

A (a Patient) v A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: CA 24 Jan 2002

The case asked how cases involving disputes as to the care of children, and of the treatment of adults claimed to be mentally incompetent. Where the issues were solely ones of public law, then they should be heard by way of judicial review in the QBD. Where any private law issues arose, they should be heard in the Family Division. The crucial distinction derived from the identity of the decision-maker whose decision was being scrutinised. If the decision was that of the child, or those acting on the child’s behalf, or the allegedly mentally incompetent adult, then the central issue was the best interests of the child or patient, and the Family Division was appropriate. If the decision was that of the hospital or otherwise, it may be a public law decision, and the issue was as to the statutory function exercised..

Judges:

Mr Justice Munby

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-2002, Gazette 14-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules Part 54

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPractice Note (Family Division: Incapacitated adults) FD 2-Jan-2002
Proceedings which invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant declarations as to the best interests of incapacitated adults were civil proceedings to which the Civil Procedure Rules applied. Although not assigned to any division, having . .
CitedA v Liverpool City Council HL 1981
Though the child was subject to a care order in favour of the local authority, a wardship order was sought.
Held: Once a care order had been made, whether final or interim, the court was effectively faced with a choice and not a choice which . .
CitedIn re W (a Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) HL 1985
Relatives of a child who was in local authority care disagreed with the authority’s plans for her future.
Held: They could not challenge them by seeking a determination on the merits in wardship.
Lord Scarman referred to Liverpool v A and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Children, Health, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167744

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Amraf Training plc: CA 28 Jun 2001

On a complaint in public law, if a party wishes to raise allegations of victimisation in the nature of malice, ill will, or undisclosed ulterior motive, in the course of proceedings, these matters had to be raised clearly and explicitly. It was inappropriate to raise such issues clearly only on appeal. Here the judge could not be criticised for taking the evidence as it was presented to him. Evidence as to victimisation introduced only at that later stage would not be admitted.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88605

Regina (Ben-Abdelaziz) v Haringey London Borough Council and Another: CA 19 Jun 2001

The claimant asserted that judicial proceedings, since they were conducted in the name of the Crown, were brought ‘by or at the instigation’ of a public authority, and that acts so challenged were therefore subject to the Act, even though they had taken place before the Act came into effect. The assertion was unsustainable. The Crown’s involvement was nominal only, and in reality the proceedings were instigated by the claimants. The acts complained of were not therefore those of a public authority. The Supreme Court Act also precluded a claim.

Citations:

Times 19-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 7, 22 (4), Supreme Court Act 1981 31(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights, Damages

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85950

Regina (Ben-Abdelaziz) v Haringey London Borough Council and Another: CA 21 Jun 2001

The claimant asserted that judicial proceedings, since they were conducted in the name of the Crown, were brought ‘by or at the instigation’ of a public authority, and that acts so challenged were therefore subject to the Act, even though they had taken place before the Act came into effect. The assertion was unsustainable. The Crown’s involvement was nominal only, and in reality the proceedings were instigated by the claimants. The acts complained of were not therefore those of a public authority. The Supreme Court Act also precluded a claim.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Jun-2001

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 7, 22 (4), Supreme Court Act 1981 31(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights, Damages

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85951

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ex Greater Manchester Police: CA 13 Mar 2001

The police authority purchased new cars, and sought to reclaim the VAT paid. The case was brought by judicial review because no appeal lay against the refusal of the Commissioners to allow this. A government scheme was intended to allow publicly funded bodies to make reclaims of VAT notwithstanding that they were not registered for VAT. Since VAT registered bodies could not either make this particular reclaim on new car purchases. The scheme which blocked refund on certain items prevailed.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 (1992 No 3222)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Police, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.88420

Regina (Great Yarmouth Port Company Limited) v Marine Management Organisation: CA 2013

There is a presumption that the bespoke statutory regime will be deployed unless there are clear and powerful reasons which exceptionally justify judicial review being permitted.

Citations:

[2013] EWCA 3052

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoGreat Yarmouth Port Company and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Marine Management Organisation and Another Admn 24-Mar-2014
Challenge to a decision of the Marine Management Organisation not to make a Harbour Revision Order in respect of the port of Great Yarmouth. The decision of the MMO was that it was not satisfied that the making of the order was desirable in the . .
CitedWatch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain v Charity Commission Admn 12-Dec-2014
The respondent had instigated a statutory inquiry under the 2011 Act into the claimant’s child safeguarding practices, and policies after compaints made to it. The Society now sought judicial review of that decision, and to production orders made to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.546851

Regina (Save) v Gateshead Metropolian Borough Council: Admn 2010

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.428417

Boxall v Waltham Forest Borough Council: 2001

The fact that the claimants were legally aided was immaterial when deciding what, if any, costs order to make between the parties in a case where they were successful and he declined to order that each side should bear its own costs. The court considered what should happen to cases where leave to apply for judicial review had been granted, but the decision had become academic before the hearing came on. Scott Baker J said: ‘The court has power to make a costs order when the substantive proceedings have been resolved without a trial but the parties have not agreed about costs.
It would ordinarily be irrelevant that the claimant is legally aided.
The overriding objective is to do justice between the parties without incurring unnecessary court time and consequently additional costs.
At each end of the spectrum there will be cases where it is obvious which side would have won had the substantive issues been fought to a conclusion. In between, the position will, in differing degrees, be less clear. How far the court will be prepared to look into the previously unresolved substantive issues will depend on the circumstances of the particular case, not least the amount of costs and the conduct of the parties.
In the absence of a good reason to make any other order the fall back position is to make no order as to costs.
The court should take care to ensure that it does not discourage parties from settling judicial review proceedings for example by a local authority making a concession at an early stage.’

Judges:

Scott Baker J

Citations:

(2001) 4 CCLR 258

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDumbuya, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham Admn 16-Jul-2008
. .
CitedE, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.272878

Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals): CA 1982

The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ and Sir John Donaldson MR

Citations:

[1982] 1 WLR 1375

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway HL 8-Nov-2000
Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.268103

Morgan v Lloyd: 1981

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1981] LLR 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAurangzeb, Regina (on the Application of) v the Law Society of England and Wales Admn 7-May-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions of the Law Society as to his alleged practise as a solicitor in breach of conditions previously imposed, and of failure to notify the Society of his bankruptcy.
Held: The request failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.263522

Re McGuigan’s Application: 1994

Citations:

[1994] NI 143

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247414

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council: CA 19 Jul 1991

The court considered the proper range within which challenges to affidavit evidence given in judicial reviw proceedings should be kept. Dillon LJ said: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an affidavit in order to seek to ascertain whether it is correct or not unless there is some material available outside that contained in the affidavit to suggest that in some material respect the affidavit is not accurate. Without some prima facie case for suggesting that the affidavit is in some respects incorrect it is improper to allow discovery of documents, the only purpose of which would be to act as a challenge to the accuracy of the affidavit. With that I would, in general, agree – and indeed the decision binds us. But I would add the qualification that if the affidavit only deals partially, and not sufficiently adequately, with an issue it may be appropriate to order discovery to supplement the affidavit, rather than to challenge its accuracy. That must depend on the nature of the issue.’
McCowan LJ: ‘The second matter which emerges from the authorities is that unless the applicant in judicial review is in a position to assert that the evidence relied on by a minister is false, or at least inaccurate, it is inappropriate to grant discovery in order to allow the applicant to check the accuracy of the evidence in question.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ, McCowan LJ

Citations:

[1991] CAT 1991/761.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247416

Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Lavelle: 1983

Prerogative remedies are only available to impugn a decision of a tribunal which is performing a public duty. Judicial review is not applicable in a strict master and servant relationship based on private contract of employment as there is no element of public law involved. Woolf J stressed that there should be no automatic intervention by a civil court to stay other proceedings, and there is no general inhibition upon an employer dismissing an employee in relation to conduct which is also the subject of incomplete criminal proceedings. While the court must have jurisdiction to intervene to prevent serious injustice occurring, it will only do so in very clear cases in which the applicant can show that there is a real danger and not merely notional danger that there would be a miscarriage of justice in criminal proceedings if the court did not intervene.
An employer may by his contract of employment fetter his right to determine the contract by notice or summarily. There ought not be be and there is no longer a fixed rule against specific performance of an employment contract.

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 23, [1983] 1 All ER 241, [1983] ICR 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application on Denis James Galligan) v the Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford Admn 22-Nov-2001
The applicant was director of the institute for socio-legal studies in Oxford. He made a decision to exclude a lecturer, and now challenged a decision by the University to set up an external enquiry into his decision, after an earlier decision to . .
CitedRegina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review, Employment

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.183142

Regina v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal: QBD 1985

The court identified when the Administrative Court is entitled to depart from a previous decision of co-ordinate jurisdiction; concluding that as a matter of judicial comity it should follow the decision unless convinced that it is wrong. In judicial review the principle of stare decisis required that, although not bound to do so, the court would follow a decision of a judge of equal jurisdiction unless the decision appeared to be clearly wrong. As for the divisional court, Goff LJ said that it would only be ‘in rare cases that a divisional court will think it fit to depart from a decision of another divisional court exercising this jurisdiction’.

Judges:

Goff LJ, McCullough and Mann JJ

Citations:

[1985] 1 QB 67, [1984] 3 All ER 240, [1984] 3 WLR 643

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.554411

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council: CA 1991

The court was asked to order a stay on implementing a decision taken by the respondent.
Held: A ‘stay of proceedings’ in the context of applications for judicial review embraced not only judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings but also extended to decisions of the Secretary of State and the process by which such decisions had been reached, including the decision itself. A distinction was to be made between civil litigation, where an injunction might be ordered at the suit of one party against the other, and judicial review, where the decision-maker is not in any true sense an opposing party and where the order that the decision should not take effect until the challenge had been determined is correctly described as a stay.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘A stay is an order that the judicial proceeding or administrative decision which is the subject of challenge should not continue or take effect until the judicial review challenge is determined. It is available as a remedy against all public bodies against whom leave has been granted, including the Crown in the form of a government department or minister.’ The language of the rule is wide enough to enable the court to impose a stay on ‘the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself’.
However, the availability of an expedited hearing of the application for judicial review made it unnecessary to order a stay: ‘We decided that the court has such jurisdiction. However, when it became clear to us that an early hearing of the substantive application could be arranged, we considered that a stay was unnecessary, and declined to grant a stay.’
Glidewell LJ said also: ‘Today, many applications for judicial review are for orders of certiorari to quash decisions of decision-making bodies other than courts, including government ministers, local authorities and other bodies whose decisions are susceptible to judicial review. Thus the phrase ‘a stay of the proceedings’ in relation to such bodies must mean a ‘stay of the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself.’

Judges:

Glidewell LJ, Taylor LJ, Sir George Waller

Citations:

[1991] 1 QB 558

Statutes:

Order 53 R3(10)(a)

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.428418

Regina v Exeter City Council, ex parte JL Thomas Co Ltd: 1990

A challenge was made to a decision of the local authority to grant planning permission for an area of land for residential development where it was surrounded by industrial works. It had no intention to arrange compulsory purchase.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The fact that the authority did not intend to use its powers for compulsory purchase did not vitiate the planning permission. It had not acted improperly or irrationally, and had not taken into account anything it should not have. An applicant for judicial review must in any event proceed ‘with greatest possible celerity.’

Judges:

Simon Brown J

Citations:

[1991] 1 QB 471, [1989] 29 RVR 134

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1991 29 51 245

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Planning

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.277138

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO: CA 1992

Neill LJ explained article 8 of the Convention in the light of Brind: ‘(1) Article 10 is not part of English domestic law. It is therefore not necessary for the Minister when exercising an administrative decision conferred on him by Parliament to exercise that discretion in accordance with the provisions of Art.10. Nor will a court when reviewing the decision of the Minister interfere with it on the ground that he did not have regard to the provisions of Art.10 . .

(2) Nevertheless, where fundamental human rights including freedom of expression are being restricted the Minister will need to show that there is an important competing public interest which is sufficient to justify the restriction.

(3) The primary judgment as to whether the competing public interest justifies the particular restriction is for the Minister. The court is only entitled to exercise a secondary judgment by asking whether a reasonable Minister, on the material before him, could reasonably make that primary judgment . .

(4) . . As the law stands at present it seems to me to be clear that though the Minister is required to justify the restriction imposed by reference to an important and sufficient competing public interest the court, when reviewing the Minister’s decision is not entitled (to use Lord Lowry’s phrase) to lower ‘the threshold of unreasonableness.”

Judges:

Neil LJ

Citations:

(1992) 5 Admin LR 785, [1993] ALR 785

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272887

Avon District Council v Buscott: 1988

The grounds on which any application for judicial review are to be based may not be raised as a defence in the civil proceedings unless a private law right has been infringed.

Citations:

[1988] QB 656

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSouth Hams District Council v Shough and Others CA 2-Dec-1992
There was a possible duty on a council not to evict trespassers claiming to be gypsies. If the authority had a duty to house the applicants, but failed to provide accommodation in accordance with that duty, it could be wrong to make an order . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Local Government

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.238436

In re Smalley: HL 1985

Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for excluding appeal or judicial review of any decision affecting the conduct of a trial on indictment, whether given in the course of the trial or by way of pre-trial directions. To allow an appellate or review process might seriously delay the trial. An aggrieved prosecutor has no remedy, because prosecutors never enjoyed rights of appeal or review when unsuccessful in trials on indictment. If the Defendant is so aggrieved, his remedy is in appeal against conviction, for a material irregularity may well result not only from a decision during the trial, but equally from a decision given in advance of the trial which affect the conduct of the trial, eg a wrongful refusal to grant him legal aid.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘It is, of course, obvious that the phrase ‘relating to trial on indictment’ in section 28(2)(a) and section 29(3) is apt to exclude appeal or judicial review in relation to the verdict given or sentence passed at the conclusion of a trial on indictment, both of which are subject to appeal as provided by the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. I accept Mr Laws’ submission that in the context, as in sections 76 and 77 of the Act of 1981, the words ‘trial on indictment’ must include the ‘trial’ of a defendant who pleads guilty on arraignment. Beyond this it is not difficult to discern a sensible legislative purpose in excluding appeal or judicial review of any decision affecting the conduct of a trial on indictment, whether given in the course of the trial or by way of pre-trial directions. In any such case to allow an appellate or review process might, as Shaw LJ pointed out in Brownlow’s case [1980] QB 530, 544, 545, seriously delay the trial. If it is the prosecutor who is aggrieved by such a decision, it is in no way surprising that he has no remedy, since prosecutors have never enjoyed rights of appeal or review when unsuccessful in trials in indictment. If, on the other hand, the defendant is so aggrieved, he will have his remedy by way of appeal against conviction under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 if he has suffered an injustice in consequence of a material irregularity in the course of the trial, which, I apprehend, may well result not only from a decision given during the trial, but equally from a decision given in advance of the trial which affects the conduct of the trial, e.g. a wrongful refusal to grant him legal aid . . It must not be thought that in using the phrase ‘any decision affecting the conduct of a trial on indictment’ I am offering a definition of a phrase which Parliament has chosen not to define. If the statutory language is, as here, imprecise, it may well be impossible to prescribe in the abstract a precise test to determine on which side of the line any case should fall and, therefore, necessary to proceed, as Mr Henderson for the appellant submitted that we should, on a case by case basis. But it is obviously desirable that your Lordships’ House should give as clear guidance as the statutory language permits, and I hope the criterion I have suggested may provide a helpful pointer to the right answer in most cases.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1985] 1 AC 623

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3), Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DistinguishedAmand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
DistinguishedRegina v Southampton Justices ex parte Green CA 1976
The court considered whether as the Court of Appeal, it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to quash an order estreating a recognisance.
Held: It did. Lord Denning MR said that ‘the matter is criminal’ if . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v District Court Martial Sitting at RAF Lyneham (ex parte SAC Wayne Robert James Stoodley) Admn 20-May-1998
The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea.
Held: The . .
CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of) Snelgrove v the Crown Court at Woolwich, and the Crown Prosecution Service Admn 29-Sep-2004
The claimant awaited trial for GBH. The claimant sought judicial review of directions given for 1) to direct disclosure of material to the claimant; 2) to adjourn the application to enable him to call oral evidence; 3) to consider any material . .
Dicta approvedRegina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions HL 7-May-1993
A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for lack of jurisdiction, was not susceptible to Judicial Review. This was a ‘decision affecting conduct of trial’. The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘other than its jurisdiction in matters . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.179889

Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Noble: 1990

Woolf LJ said: ‘Unfortunately in my view there is no universal test which will be applicable to all circumstances which will indicate clearly and beyond peradventure as to when judicial review is or is not available. It is a situation where the courts have, over the years, by decision in individual cases, indicated the approximate divide between those cases which are appropriate to be dealt with judicial review and those cases which are suitable dealt with in ordinary civil proceedings.’

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] ICR 808

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.514228

George v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1979

The claimant challenged a decision made under the 1946 Act.
Held: It will only be upon rare occasions that the interests of justice will require that leave be given for cross-examination of deponents on their affidavits in applications for judicial review.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I also accept the submission that there can be no such thing as a ‘technical’ breach of the rules of natural justice, since the concept of natural justice is not concerned with the observation of technicalities but with matters of substance.
The question is whether, as a result of any failure in procedure or the like, there was a breach of natural justice.
One should not find a breach of natural justice unless there has been substantial prejudice to the applicant as a result of the mistake or error that has been made . .’
Cumming-Bruce LJ described the kind of situations within judicial review proceedings, where which cross-examination should be ordered: ‘The kind of situations in which I would expect cross-examination to be ordered is where the affidavits of one party are so unsatisfactory that, although they cannot be regarded without cross-examination as worthless evidence, they cannot be confidently accepted as evidence of fact without cross-examination. On the facts of this case . . I would have thought, on reading the affidavits, that there was an overwhelming inference that the evidence was both ingenuous and ingenious and so suspicious that, without cross-examination, it should anyway be rejected. If however, Sir Douglas Frank was not prepared, as he was not, to go as far as that, it was in my view, his duty to admit the cross-examination in order to determine whether the evidence was unreliable.’
Lord Denning MR gave three reasons for the judicial reluctance to order cross-examination in cases of judicial review: ‘(i) that because the affidavits will usually speak as to what took place before a judicial or quasi-judicial body they may have to be sworn by a planning inspector or a magistrate, or someone of that kind. Since it is undesirable that such a person should be subjected to cross-examination, the applicant should not be liable to cross-examination either;
(ii) experience shows that on procedural questions arising on judicial review there is very little conflict on the affidavits; and
(iii) if cross-examination is permitted there will be a temptation to try and undermine the actual findings of the inferior body.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Cumming-Bruce LJ

Citations:

(1979) 77 LGR 689, (1979) 38 P and CR 609, (1979) 250 EG 339

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946

Cited by:

CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.470550

Casey v Edinburgh Airport Ltd: SCS 23 Feb 1989

There was a challenge to decisions taken by the airport authority, under a bye-law, to refuse permits to the applicant taxi operators. During the hearing, the applicants sought to challenge the validity of the bye-law itself.
Held: Lord Morison refused to consider such a challenge in the absence of intimation to the taxi operators who had been granted permits under the contested bye-law. He said: ‘No intimation of the petition has been made to these persons, since in its present form it does not affect their interest . . It seems to me to be clear that the argument sought to be presented by the petitioners cannot be determined in the absence of intimation to other taxi operators who have an interest to uphold the validity of the permission granted to them.’

Judges:

Lord Morison

Citations:

Unreported, 23 February 1989

Cited by:

CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448088

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd: Admn 1998

The court considered the need for speedy action in challenging planning decisions, and the need not to wait for the last available day. A review request should be directed at the decision properly under challenge. Laws J held: ‘In Gooding and Adams there were concrete decisions, not just a ‘continuing practice’, which were undoubtedly susceptible to the judicial review jurisdiction and which on the face of their pleadings the applicants sought to assault. Yet in each case the court held there was delay arising out of the applicants’ failure to challenge an earlier executive act or acts. These authorities do not enter into any analysis of the proper construction of Order 53, r.4(1), but as it seems to me they lend implicit support to the approach urged by the respondents, and I would construe the rule accordingly. In my judgment, however, even if Order 53, r.4(1) is to be interpreted more conservatively, so that ‘the date when grounds . . first arise’ is never earlier than the date when the impugned decision is taken, Eurotunnel, Gooding and Adams exemplify a common principle, whose nature is not dependent upon an appeal to the rules relating to delay. It is that a judicial review applicant must move against the substantive act or decision which is the real basis of his complaint. If, after that act has been done, he takes no steps but merely waits until something consequential and dependent upon it takes place and then challenges that, he runs the risk of being put out of court for being too late.[Counsel for the applicant] did not seek to deny that there exists a discretion to refuse leave, or relief, in such a case whether or not it falls within the terms of Order 53, r.4(1) or section 31(6). This is an inevitable function of the fact that the judicial review court, being primarily concerned with the maintenance of the rule of law by the imposition of objective legal standards upon the conduct of public bodies, has to adapt a flexible but principled approach to its own jurisdiction. Its decisions will constrain the actions of elected government, sometimes bringing potential uncertainty and added cost to good administration. And from time to time its judgments may impose heavy burdens on third parties. This is a price which often has to be paid for the rule of law to be vindicated. But because of these deep consequences which touch the public interest, the court in its discretion – whether so directed by rules of court or not – will impose a strict discipline in proceedings before it. It is marked by an insistence that applicants identify the real substance of their complaint and then act promptly, so as to ensure that the proper business of government and the reasonable interests of third parties are not overborne or unjustly prejudiced by litigation brought in circumstances where the point in question could have been exposed and adjudicated without unacceptable damage. The rule of law is not threatened, but strengthened, by such a discipline. It invokes public confidence and engages the law in the practical world. And it is administered, of course, case by case’.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1998] Env LR 415

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.428515

Campbell v Municipal Council of Sydney: PC 1925

The court looked at the council resolutions, which in turn referred to a minute of the Lord Mayor that indicated the general purpose of the council’s action.
Held: A court was able to look at surrounding papers to derive the reasons for the decision under challenge. The use of the word ‘proper’ may be understood to invoke the requirement that a power can only be used for the purpose or purposes for which it is conferred and not for some extraneous purpose.

Judges:

Viscount Cave, Lord Blanesburgh, Duff J and Sir Adrian Knox

Citations:

[1925] AC 338, [1924] All ER 930

Cited by:

CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.414943

Regina v Blandford Magistrates Court ex parte Pamment: CA 1990

The Applicant was charged and remanded into custody by the Justices, having refused conditional bail. Bail was later granted, but he sought judicial review of the original remand decision, just before his trial, which then intervened. After the trial, the Divisional Court quashed the remand decision adjourning the claim for damages. It was said that section 18(a) prevented an appeal. The Justices sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal, contending that given the termination of the criminal trial, the jurisdictional bar enshrined in Section 18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not apply.
Held: The Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. It was argued that when the judicial review application was heard by the Divisional Court, the criminal proceedings were no longer in existence.
Taylor LJ said: ‘If the Divisional Court’s decision was not in a criminal cause or matter, in what type of proceeding was it made? It cannot have been a decision in vacuo and, for my part, I see no basis in principle or authority for attributing such a chameleon character to a cause or matter as to make it change from criminal to civil simply because the proceedings are concluded or because the review of the decision in such cause or matter may be too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. In my opinion, the judgment of the Divisional Court in the present case was made in a criminal cause or matter’.
Lord Donaldson MR, emphasizing the words of Lord Esher MR ‘at whatever stage of the proceedings the question arises’ [in Ex parte Woodhall 20 QBD 832, at p. 836], added that this formulation: ‘is apt to include the stage at which proceedings are in contemplation, the stage during which they are being prosecuted and the stage which follows following the giving of the judgment of the court, a stage at which it can be said that the court is functus officio’.

Judges:

Lord Donaldson MR, Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 1490

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEx parte Waldron CA 1986
The court was asked whether section 139 precluded a mental patient from applying for leave to move for judicial review.
Held: A restriction on the bringing of civil or criminal proceedings imposed by the section 139 did not apply to . .

Cited by:

CitedEw v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408586

Regina v Tottenham Magistrates Court ex parte Gleaves: Admn 18 Dec 1992

An application for permission to bring judicial review and the judicial review proceedings themselves (whether in a civil or criminal cause or matter) are all civil proceedings and are caught by a civil proceedings order against the applicant.
Evans LJ concluded that all proceedings under RSC Order 53 were civil proceedings: ‘The matter can be tested in this way. So far as these proceedings are concerned, that is to say, Mr Gleaves’ application for judicial review . . there is no prosecutor and there is no defendant. Indeed . . the intended defendant in the Magistrates Court is not necessarily a party to these proceedings.
This is an application by Mr Gleaves and the respondent is the Tottenham Magistrates Court. These are civil proceedings. Mr Gleaves seeks to invoke the powers of the civil courts admittedly for the purposes, as he sees them, of the criminal proceedings which he seeks to institute in the magistrates court but does not alter the fact in my view that he is invoking the powers of the civil court and that an application under O 53 at all its stages, even when the application relates to a criminal cause or matter, is nevertheless properly to be regarded as a civil proceeding.’

Judges:

Evans LJ and Otton J

Citations:

CO/2253/90, Unreported 18 December 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedEw v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.408585

Regina v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Nangle: CA 1991

The applicant was a Civil Servant seeking judicial review of the Department’s decision to discipline him. The issue was whether he had a contract of employment or merely a relationship with the Crown, regulated under its prerogative powers. There were a number of documents which, together, comprised Mr Nangle’s appointment. There was a letter of appointment which cross referred to other documents which either were enclosed with the letter or were readily available elsewhere.
Held: The question whether there was an intention to create legal relations had to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are to be derived solely from the documents, its answer depends upon the construction of those documents: ‘[I]n our judgment, that the question whether there is an intention to create legal relations is to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are, as here, to be derived solely from the documents, depends upon the construction of those documents. It is possible for a party to believe mistakenly that he is contractually bound to another when in fact he is not; and conversely to believe that he is not when he is. His belief is immaterial. While this remains a subjective belief uncommunicated to the other party, this is plainly correct. But where such a belief is expressed in the documents it must be a question of construction of the documents as a whole what effect should be given to such a statement.’
Civil servants enter into legal relations with the Crown in the form of contracts of employment: ‘In our judgment the use of the word ‘appointment’ is neutral and certainly does not negative an intention to create legal relations. Many contractual relationships of employer and employee are described as appointments’.

Citations:

[1991] ICR 743, [1992] 1 All ER 897

Employment, Contract, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.392700

Rape Crisis Centre v Secretary of State for the Home Department: 2000

The petitioner sought judicial review of a decision to allow the boxer Mike Tyson to visit the UK.
Held: The Immigration Rules conferred no express or implied rights on third parties such as the petitioners. A review was refused.
Lord Clarke the issues of title and interest to sue on a broad and flexible basis: saying: ‘Two things require, in my judgment, to be noted about that dictum. In the first place (Lord Dunedin) was recognising the difficulty and, indeed, inappropriateness of seeking to provide any fixed definition of the concept of title to sue. Secondly, the dictum, though it has stood the test of time, was uttered in times well before the huge development of administrative law and judicial review that has occurred in recent decades. The key elements, therefore, of the dictum, namely ‘some legal relation which gives him some right which the person against whom he raises the action either infringes or denies’ must be given a content and a meaning which keep them abreast with those developments. Where questions of title to sue arise in a situation where a Minister is exercising a function, the search is, in my opinion, to be focussed on the scope and the purpose of the statute or other measure under which he is purporting to act to discover who, in law, has the right to challenge an act or decision taken by the Minister in the exercise of that function if that act or decision is not to his liking. The fact that the act or decision is not to his liking does not per se qualify a person with title to challenge. Some legislation and its related measures, having regard to their purpose and function, will, no doubt, confer a right of challenge on individual members of the public as a whole, but it is a fallacy to suppose that because of the public interest in ministers acting lawfully and fairly that public interest by itself confers on every member of the public a right to challenge a Minister’s act or decision. Matters must go further, in my judgment, and the individual or body seeking to challenge the Minister’s act or decision must show that, having regard to the scope and purpose of the legislation, or measures, under which the act is performed, or the decision is made, he or they have had such a right conferred upon them by law, either expressly or impliedly.’
And: ‘That approach to questions of title to sue was applied by Lord Clyde in the case of Scottish Old People’s Welfare Council, Petitioners [1987 SLT 179] where his Lordship, under reference to the supplementary benefits legislation, with which he was concerned in that case, said at p. 185: ‘The purpose of the legislation is to make state benefit available to any member of the public who may qualify for it and it is not unreasonable to see the duty of the proper administration of the legislation as a duty owed to the public. On that basis it can be concluded that any member of the public has at least a title to sue and the only question remaining would be whether he has an interest to do so.”
‘In my judgment the petitioners were in no different a position from any other member of the public in that respect. The scope and function of the legislation, and the rules, did not provide a legal nexus between the petitioners and the Secretary of State when he was exercising his discretion under them.’

Judges:

Lord Ordinary (Lord Clarke)

Citations:

2000 SC 527

Cited by:

CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.393384

Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board Ex Parte Bruce: 1988

The court recognised that there could be terms of the appointment of a civil servant which could have legal effect. May LJ said: ‘I think that at the present time in at least the great majority of cases involving disputes about the dismissal of an employee by his employer, the most appropriate forum for their resolution is an industrial tribunal (now of course an employment tribunal). The Courts should not be astute to hold that any particular dispute is appropriate for consideration under the judicial review procedure.’

Judges:

May LJ, Roch J

Citations:

[1988] ICR 649

Cited by:

CitedBritish Telecommunications Plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd QBD 7-Jan-2010
The court considered the liability of the claimant for injury claims by former members of the Post Office at the date of the transfer.
Held: The obligations had been transferred: ‘section 10(2) of the Act, if read according to both its natural . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.392701

Regina v Wolverhampton Coroner ex parte McCurbin: CA 1990

The judicial review test is not simply whether there has been an error of law, but also whether the error has or may have resulted in a wrong verdict being entered.

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 719

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v West London Coroner ex parte Gray CA 1988
Before a coroner’s jury could reach a verdict of unlawful killing, it had to be satisfied ‘that the act or omission of a single person must amount to unlawful conduct which was a substantial cause of death’, although Rule 42 of the Coroners Rules . .

Cited by:

CitedO’Connor, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Coroner for District of Avon and Another Admn 7-May-2009
Two children died when their father jumped with them from a hotel balcony. The father had been acquitted in Crete of manslaughter after evidence of his psychiatric condition. The applicant now challenged the English coroner’s verdict of unlawful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.342123

Regina v Secretary of State for Education, ex parte G: 1995

The court was asked as to the need to give reasons in making a decision on a direction in a case of special educational needs.

Citations:

[1995] ELR 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Education

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.278282

Regina v London Borough of Islington, ex parte Hinds: QBD 1995

The court considered a request to review a decision on unintentional homelessness under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.
Held: Public confidence in the decision making process is enhanced by knowledge that supportable reasons are given and that the giving of reasons is a self-disciplining exercise

Judges:

Louis Blom-Cooper QC

Citations:

(1995) 27 HLR 65

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 25-Nov-2008
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Housing

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.278283

Regina v Swale Borough Council, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: 1991

A party seeking a judicial review has a duty to go ahead very quickly. The court considered the need for an environmental assessment in respect of the proposed development.

Citations:

[1991] 1 PLR 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
CitedFriends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Planning, Environment

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.277139

Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte TV Northern Ireland Limited: CA 30 Dec 1991

An application for judicial review must be made with the utmost promptness and particularly so where third party rights may be affected. This requirement is additional to the three month limit.

Citations:

[1991] TLR 606, [1996] JR 60, Times 30-Dec-1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
CitedFaisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.277137

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Islington London Borough Council and the London Lesbian and Gay Centre: 1997

Unless there is some prima facie case for suggesting that the evidence relied upon by the deciding authority is in some respects incorrect or inadequate it is improper to allow disclosure of documents, the only purpose of which would be to act as a challenge to the accuracy of the affidavit evidence.

Citations:

[1997] JR 121

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247413

Regina (International Masters Publishers Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 19 Jan 2006

The taxpayer sold book with associated CDs. The respondent refused to apply the ESC 37 concession. There was doubt its capacity to do so, but the taxpayer first lodged an appeal. It now sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision out of time.
Held: The applicant had been aware of the possibility of applying for judicial review from the start. It had instead lodged an appeal hoping to save costs. In those circumstances leave would be refused. The delay was substantial. The company should have notified the respondents of its doubts, and sought an agreement from the respondent to an extension of time to apply for a judicial review.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoInternational Masters Publishers Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 25-Apr-2005
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SUPPLY – CD book as part of a series on classic composers comprising a CD and 12 pages of written material and illustrations – principal supply is that of the CD – appeal dismissed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238287

Regina v Department of Transport, ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd: 1992

In a judicial review application, the question of standing falls to be considered again in deciding whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief: ‘The court must . . review at [the substantive] stage the question of sufficiency of interest and exercise its discretion accordingly. Whether this is properly called an investigation of locus standi or the exercise of discretion whether to grant [a remedy] is probably a semantic distinction without a difference. Personally I would prefer to restrict the use of the expression locus standi to the threshold exercise and to describe the decision at the ultimate stage as an exercise of discretion not to grant [a remedy] because the [claimant] has not established that he had been or was sufficiently affected.’

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

(1992) 4 Admin LR 121

Cited by:

CitedWildman, Regina (on the Application of) v The Office of Communications Admn 25-Jul-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of an order quashing the decision of the Office of Communications to refuse a radio licence.
Held: The court should be very cautious before quashing a decision as to the allocation of broadcasting licences. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230362

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council: CA 1991

Dillon LJ said as to practice within judicial review proceedings: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an affidavit in order to seek to ascertain whether it is correct or not unless there is some material available outside that contained in the affidavit to suggest that in some material respect the affidavit is not accurate. Without some prima facie case for suggesting that the affidavit is in some respects incorrect it is improper to allow discovery of documents, the only purpose of which would be to act as a challenge to the accuracy of the affidavit. With that I would, in general, agree – and indeed the decision binds us. But I would add the qualification that if the affidavit only deals partially, and not sufficiently adequately, with an issue it may be appropriate to order discovery to supplement the affidavit, rather than to challenge its accuracy. That must depend on the nature of the issue.’
McCowan LJ: ‘The second matter which emerges from the authorities is that unless the applicant in judicial review is in a position to assert that the evidence relied on by a minister is false, or at least inaccurate, it is inappropriate to grant discovery in order to allow the applicant to check the accuracy of the evidence in question.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1991] CAT 1991/761

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd QBD 1995
A British consortium looked for assistance in providing a hydro-electric project on the Pergau river. One interested government department advised that it was not economical and an abuse of the overseas aid programme, but the respondent decided to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.229327

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Ruddock: QBD 1987

The claimant sought judicial revew of arrangements made to tap his telephone. Given the importance of the point of law at issue, the court allowed an application which might otherwise not have been granted for delay. The imperative to have some degree of judicial supervision of government is manifest; to preclude judicial supervision would be a ‘draconian and dangerous step’.
Taylor J rejected an argument that the Secretary of State case could ‘invariably maintain silence’, observing: ‘I recognise there could occur a case where the issue raised was so sensitive and the revelations necessarily following its decision so damaging to national security that the court might have to take special measures (for example sitting in camera or prohibiting the mention of names). Conceivably (although I would reserve the point) in an extreme case the court might have to decline to try the issues. But in all such cases, cogent evidence of potential damage to national security flowing from the trial of the issues would have to be adduced, whether in open court or in camera, to justify any modification of the court’s normal procedure. Totally to oust the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in a field where ex hypothesi the citizen can have no right to be consulted is a draconian and dangerous step indeed. Evidence to justify the court’s declining to decide a case (if such a course is ever justified) would need to be very strong and specific.

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

[1987] 1 WLR 1482, [1987] 2 All ER 518

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223700

Regina v Rochdale MBC ex parte Schemet: 1992

In a proper case the court may permit a challenge to a decision which is months out of time.

Judges:

Roch J

Citations:

(1992) 91 LGR 425

Cited by:

CitedFitzgibbon v HM Attorney General ChD 9-Feb-2005
The claimant sought declarations that the government of Australia was not being conducted in accordance with the 1900 Act as it should be.
Held: Though the Act was an English Act, the Courts of England now have no jurisdiction over Australia: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222628

Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs: CA 1968

The plaintiffs were two scientology students present under permits for a limited stay as students. They sought extensions of the permits. The government had meanwhile decided that scientology was socially harmful, and steps would be taken to curb its growth. The applications were rejected. The students issues writs seeking a declaration that the respondents decision to reject all such applications was void and unlawful. They appealed an order striking out their claim as an abuse.
Held: No reasonable cause of action had been disclosed. The respondent had ample power under the order to refuse admission to aliens, and that power had been exercised fairly and in the pursuit of a policy deemed valid and in the interests of society. There was no obligation to give reasons for refusing entry of an extension of a right to stay. No question of natural justice arose. Denning MR: The Home Secretary may announce a blanket policy provided he was ready in exceptional cases to listen to argument as to why the policy should not be applied.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1969] 1 All ER 904, [1969] 2 Ch 160, [1969] 2 W:R 346, 133 JP 274, 113 Sol Jo 16

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Immigration

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222181

Ex parte Worth: 1985

The giving of leave to bring a judicial review case did not equate to an extension of time to make the application. The judge’s task on the ex parte application was to do no more than to decide that there was an arguable case for judicial review and not to ‘determine any issue finally in favour of the applicant.’ and ‘In short I conclude, while recognising that the conclusion does not follow inevitably from the express wording of the rules in the Act (sic) that the granting of leave to move does not preclude the respondent from objecting that the application has been made out of time.’

Judges:

Webster J

Citations:

[1985] STC 564

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

OverruledRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A HL 11-Mar-1999
A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence before the CICB when it rejected her claim for compensation.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.216416