MDMH (Bangladesh) for Judicial Review of Adecisions of The Secretary of State for The Home Department: SCS 19 Sep 2014

MDMH_sshdSCS1409

SCS Outer House – Acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, an immigration officer decided that the petitioner was liable to be removed from the UK. The petitioner had a right of appeal out-of-country, but applied, instead, for judicial review of the decision. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative procedure.

Lord Jones
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 143
Bailii

Scotland, Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.537047

Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another: HL 23 May 2002

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be granted, and also that her application for leave having been refused, there was no jurisdiction in the House to hear the appeal.
Held: The local authority wished to calculate time from the time when they resolved to refer the application to the secretary of state and to grant permission subject to conditions. The appellant had forewarned the authority of her intention to object. The effective decision was not made until the secretary of state himself made a decision. Public law should look to substance not form. Until the grant was actually made, changes might yet be made, and the appellant should not properly be challenging it. The applicant had not delayed unduly. A renewed application to the Court of Appeal under Order 59, rule 14(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court was a true appeal with a procedure adapted to its ex parte nature. There was nothing in the rules to prevent the present application. There is some doubt that the requirement to challenge a decision by judicial review within three months meets with the requirements of the Convention or European law.

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Millett and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Times 24-May-2002, Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] UKHL 23, [2002] 1 WLR 1593, [2002] 3 All ER 97
House of Lords, Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 54.5(1), European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – In 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 – Kemper 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 . .
Cited – Lane 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Garden and Leisure Group Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v North Somerset Council and Another Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimant garden centre sought to challenge a relaxation on planning restrictions over a competing centre.
Held: The section 106 agreemnent was to be looked at to see what purpose was served by the original conditions. Section 106A(6) does . .
Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Richardson 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 . .
Cited – Derbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Cited – The British Beer and Pub Association and others v Canterbury City Council Admn 24-Jun-2005
The council had required of applicants for liquor licenses more detailed information than was required by the statute. The Association challenged their policy.
Held: One aim of the legislation is to allow licensing authorities to provide a . .
Cited – Finn-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 . .
Cited – Alexander, 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 . .
Cited – Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 6-Feb-2013
The Council sought permission to appeal against the setting aside of two enforcement notices, leave having been refused by the Administrative court. The court now considered whether it had jusridiction, and whether the rule in Lane v Esdaile was to . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.171257

The British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Mar 1964

The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory functions; it is not in any general way subject to statutory guidance. The traditional view of it is that it does not exercise a governmental function, and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
Counsel claimed for the government the right to grant a monopoly of broadcasting. LJ Diplock replied: ‘It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. The limits within which the executive government may impose obligations or restraints upon citizens of the United Kingdom without any statutory authority are now well settled and incapable of extension. In particular, as respects monopolies the Crown’s claim to a general right to the monopoly of any activity was denied and circumscribed by the Statute of Monopolies, 1623. Today, save in so far as the power is preserved by the Statute of Monopolies, or created by other statutes, the executive government has no constitutional right either itself to exercise through its agents or to confer upon other persons a monopoly of any form of activity.’
and ‘The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’
As to whether a statute was binding on the Crown: ‘Since laws are made by rulers of the subjects, a general expression in a statute such as ‘any person’ descriptive of those on whom the statute imposes obligations or restraints is not to be read as including the ruler himself . . The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive Government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’

Willmer LJ, Diplock LJ, Danckwerts LJ
[1965] Ch 32 CA, [1964] EWCA Civ 2, [1964] 41 TC 471, (1964) 43 ATC 38, [1964] 1 All ER 923, [1964] 2 WLR 1071, [1964] TR 45, [1964] RVR 579, [1964] 10 RRC 239
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Dictum adopted – Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Cited – Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181973

Central 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 respect of their occupation.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. A court hearing a judicial review of an authority’s decision to seek possession of land occupied as residence, should look at the several decisions involved and test each for reasonableness. It should not restrict itself to a pure rationality test: ‘a public authority should take account of the personal circumstances of the occupier known to it, but it does not follow from this that there will ever be circumstances in which it will be unreasonable to seek possession against trespassers in situations similar to those in Kay. Those situations may make it unreasonable not to allow a period of time to bring the possession order sought into effect but that is something which the court oversees and which the law allows for.’
However: ‘under domestic property law the appellants have no right to occupy their respective premises, of which the council has an unqualified right of possession. The appellants fall outside the categories to which Parliament has provided protection. The council has no duty to accommodate the appellants and has a duty to manage its assets. The appellants have put in a draft pleading before us, but it does not allege any facts which provide some special claim to remain. If the matter were remitted the court would be bound to make an order for possession, although it would be entitled to take account of the personal circumstances in considering the time at which the order would be effective.’

Waller, lloyd, Richards LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 613, [2009] 26 EG 112, [2009] 37 EG 106, Times 23-Jul-2009, [2010] 1 WLR 446, [2010] PTSR 66, [2009] NPC 82, [2009] BLGR 773, [2010] 1 P and CR 3
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kay 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 . .
Cited – Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council HL 30-Jul-2008
The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to . .
Cited – McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield District Council CA 1-Apr-2009
The appellant was a non-secure tenant of the respondent. It had served a notice to quit and he now appealed against an order for possession on public law grounds.
Held: There had been a delay between the issue of the notice to quit and the . .
Cited – Doran v Liverpool City Council CA 3-Mar-2009
The claimant sought to set aside an order requiring him to give up possession of a caravan pitch held under the 1968 Act.
Held: The decision to serve a notice to quit which was reasonable on the facts known to the local authority at the time . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Barber v London Borough of Croydon CA 11-Feb-2010
The tenant who suffered learning and behavioural difficulties appealed against an order for possession of his council flat. He had become aggressive with the caretaker. The council sought possession, and he defended the claim saying that the council . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.347138

Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2): CA 1979

Proper Limits on Imprisonment

The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of the right of a subject is that it carries with it a right of recourse to the courts unless some statute decrees otherwise.’
The disciplinary decisions of prison Boards of Visitors could be distinguished from those of prison governors and were amenable to judicial review. In exceptional cases, where a disciplinary hearing may depend on the disputed factual evidence of a witness, natural justice itself may require that the employee should be be allowed to cross examine the witness.
Jeffrey Laing LJ said: ‘In our judgement, the statutory obligation to make the rules, and R49 (2) in particular, are merely declaratory on one of the basic rules of natural justice, namely that every party to the controversy has the right to a fair hearing. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made effecting him; he then must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them.’
the court in judicial review proceedings is neither concerned nor equipped to resolve issues of fact. The public authority’s evidence of the facts will be accepted.

Shaw LJ, Jeffrey Laing LJ
[1979] QB 425, [1979] 3 All ER 545, [1979] 1 WLR 1401
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Approved – O’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 – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Cited – Santamera v Express Cargo Forwarding (T/A IEC Ltd) EAT 26-Nov-2002
The claimant appealed against a decision that she had not been unfairly dismissed. She had been dismissed after complaints by a colleague, but had not been given the opportunity to examine him during the process.
Held: An employer was not duty . .
Cited – Al-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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.190126

Wasif v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Feb 2016

Wide scope for refusal of JR leave

These two appeals have been listed together because they both raise an issue about the proper approach to be taken in considering whether to certify an application for permission to apply for judicial review as ‘totally without merit’.
Held: The phrase ‘totally without merit’ did not describe the entire range of matters where leave to bring judicial review could be refused. There are also cases in which the claimant has identified a rational argument but where the judge is confident that, even taken at its highest, the claim is wrong, and in such a case it is right to refuse permission if the judge feels able confidently to reject the claimant’s arguments.

Lord Dyson MR, Underhill, Floyd LJJ
[2016] 1 WLR 2793, [2016] Imm AR 585, [2016] EWCA Civ 82, [2016] WLR(D) 81
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Henry, Regina (on The Application of) v The Bar Standards Board Admn 28-Sep-2016
JR leave refusal – BSB Disciplinary Refusal
The claimant, was a solicitor who had himself been disciplined for misconduct, of disciplinary decisions following findings that his conduct had fallen short of that expected of an ordinary honest individual with his knowledge and experience and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Immigration

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.559743

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Asif Javed and Zuifiqar Ali and Abid Ali: CA 17 May 2001

A designation of Pakistan as a safe place for the return of a failed asylum applicant was unlawful because there was plain evidence that persecution of women who left the marital home, whether voluntarily or by compulsion, was widespread. Accordingly an order applying to both men and women was not justified and had to be struck down.
Courts may consider whether delegated legislation is in accordance with statutory authority, or whether it is otherwise unlawful, irrespective of the views to that effect expressed by Ministers or others in Parliament.
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘Legislation is the function of Parliament, and an Act of Parliament is immune from scrutiny by the courts, unless challenged on the ground of conflict with European law. Subordinate legislation derives its legality from the primary legislation under which it is made. Primary legislation that requires subordinate legislation to be approved by each House of Parliament does not thereby transfer from the courts to the two Houses of Parliament, the role of determining the legality of the subordinate legislation.’ and
‘Whether there was in general a serious risk of persecution was a question which might give rise to a genuine difference of opinion on the part of two rational observers of the same evidence. A judicial review of the Secretary of State’s conclusion needed to have regard to that considerable margin of appreciation. There was no question here of conducting a rigorous examination that required the Secretary of State to justify his conclusion. If the applicants were to succeed in showing that the designation of Pakistan was illegal, they had to demonstrate that the evidence clearly established that there was a serious risk of persecution in Pakistan and that this was a state of affairs that was a general feature in that country. For a risk to be serious it would have to affect a significant number of the populace.’

Lord Phillips MR, Peter Gibson, Latham LJJ
Times 24-May-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2001] Imm AR 529, [2002] QB 129, [2001] INLR 645, [2001] 3 WLR 323, [2001] EWCA Civ 789
Bailii
Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Countries) Order 1996 No 2671
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – The Refugee Legal Centre, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 12-Nov-2004
The applicant alleged that the fast track system of selecting and dealing with unmeritorious asylum claims was unfair and unlawful.
Held: The system was not inherently unfair and therefore unlawful and clear written instructions would suffice . .
Cited – Regina (Husan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought asylum from Bangladesh. His application was refused, and the respondent issued a certificate to say that his claim was hopeless. He sought judicial review.
Held: There was so much evidence that Bangladesh suffered . .
Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Cited – AXA 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 . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Brown, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 28-May-2012
The claimant, a citizen of Jamaica, came to the UK in 2010 on a visitor’s visa with leave to remain for one month. He then applied for asylum on the ground that he is a Jamaican homosexual and feared persecution if returned to Jamaica. He was . .
Cited – JB (Jamaica), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 12-Jun-2013
The claimant was to be removed and returned to Jamaica, but claimed that as a homosexual he would be persecuted. He now challenged the inclusion of Jamaica within the last of safe countries.
Held: (Moore-Bick LJ dissenting) The appeal . .
Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Constitutional, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.147552

Regina 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 was said by the defendant’s advisers to be an abuse of the aid system. The defendant said the plaintiff had no sufficient interest to mount a challenge. The plaintiff said that as a charity itself distributing aid, the diversion of such huge sums affected its own actions, and this amounted to a proper interest.
Held: The declaration was granted.
The issue of standing went as to jurisdiction, but there was nothing in the case law to deny the applicants such standing. Standing should be treated as a preliminary issue, taken in the legal and factual context of the whole case. As to that: ‘where, as here, the contemplated development is, on the evidence, so economically unsound that there is no economic argument in favour of the case, it is not, in my judgment, possible to draw any material distinction between questions of propriety and regularity on the one hand and questions of economy and efficiency of public expenditure on the other.’

Rose LJ, Scott Baker J
[1995] 1 WLR 386, [1994] EWHC Admin 1, [1995] 1 All ER 611, [1995] COD 211
Bailii
Overseas Development and Co operation Act 1980, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Regina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Social Services, Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group CA 1989
The applicants sought judicial review of the failures by the respondent in processing claims for benefits. They asked that there should be a declaration that the respondent had a duty to refer a claim to an adjudication officer as soon as it was . .
Cited – Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc CA 14-Mar-1986
Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review
The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg Admn 30-Jul-1993
The applicant, a former editor of the Times, sought judicial review of the decision by the respondent to ratify the EU Treaty (Maastricht), saying that it would increase the powers of the European Parliament without it having been approved by . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ex parte Smedley CA 19-Dec-1984
The applicant sought, as a taxpayer, to object to the proposed payment of andpound;121m to the European Community without an Appropriation Act, but under an Order in Council. The claim was that a draft Order in Council laid by the Treasury before . .
Cited – Regina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1972
The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Hanks and Others v Minister of Housing and Local Government 1963
A factor in a decision might be so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. There might be cases where the factor wrongly omitted was ‘insignificant’ and thus would not justify . .
Cited – Regina v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council 1986
A political purpose can taint an administrative decision with impropriety. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen CA 1963
Lord Denning MR discussed a decision to deport the applicant. The validity of the Minister’s act: ‘depends on the purpose with which the act is done.: ‘If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an . .

Cited by:
Cited – Tweed 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 . .
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.245695

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex parte Lain: QBD 1967

The Crown Prerogative origin of the power to make ex gratia payments does not exclude the scheme under which the payments are made from judicial review. Decisions of the Board may therefore be subject to judicial review.
Lord Parker CJ explained the limits of certiorari: ‘They have varied from time to time being extended to meet changing conditions. At one time the writ only went to an inferior court. Later its ambit was extended to statutory tribunals determining a lis inter partes. Later again it extended to cases where there was no lis in the strict sense of the word but where immediate or subsequent rights of a citizen were affected. The only constant limits throughout were that it was performing a public duty. Private or domestic tribunals have always been outside the scope of certiorari since their authority is derived solely from contract, that is, from the agreement of the parties concerned . . We have, as it seems to me reached the position when the ambit of certiorari can be said to cover every case in which a body of persons of a public as opposed to a purely private or domestic character has to determine matters affecting subjects provided always that it has a duty to act judicially. Looked at in this way the board in my judgment comes fairly and squarely within the jurisdiction of this court . .’
Diplock LJ said: ‘If new tribunals are established by acts of government, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court extends to them if they possess the essential characteristics upon which the subjection of inferior tribunal to the supervisory control of the High Court is based. What are these characteristics? It is plain on the authorities that the tribunal need not be one whose determinations give rise directly to any legally enforceable right or liability. Its determination may be subject to certiorari notwithstanding that it is merely one step in the process which may have the result of altering the legal rights or liabilities of a person to whom it relates . .’

Lord Parker CJ, Diplock LJ, Ashworth J
[1967] 2 QB 864, [1967] 2 All ER 770, [1967] 3 WLR 348
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Parte Northumbria Police Authority CA 18-Nov-1987
The Authority appealed from refusal of judicial review of a circular issued by the respondent as to the supply of Plastic Baton Rounds and CS gas from central resources only. The authority suggested that the circular amounted to permission for the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.196540

Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Admn 2 Feb 2017

PI appealed from a ruling of the IPT that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise ‘the taking . . of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified’ was wide enough to encompass computer and network exploitation or, in colloquial language, hacking of computers including mobile devices on a thematic basis, i.e. in respect of a class of property or people or a class of such acts. The Tribunal replied that section 67 of the 2000 Act disallowed any appeal. PI responded that that should not include a request for judicial review of an error in law.
Held: The section did indeed preclude such a request. The judges disagreed.
PI sought judicial review of a decision of the IPT as to the proper construction of section 5 of the 1994 Act.

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Leggatt J
[2017] EWHC 114 (Admin)
Bailii
Intelligence Services Act 1994 5, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 67(8)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others CA 23-Nov-2017
The claimant sought to bring judicial review against the IPT. The IPT argued that section 67(8) of the 2000 Act prevented such a claim. . .
At Admn – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Judicial Review, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.573929

O’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 limits.
Held: The forfeiture of remission for a prisoner was, as a matter of law, not a loss of liberty but a loss of a privilege, the loss of right protected by public law. Any proceedings to enforce a public duty should not be by way of ordinary action.
Lord Diplock said: ‘it would in my view as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of an ordinary action and by this means to evade the provisions of Order 53 for the protection of such authorities . . I have described this as a general rule; for though it may normally be appropriate to apply it by the summary process of striking out the action, there may be exceptions, particularly where the invalidity of the decision arises as a collateral issue in a claim for infringement of a right of the plaintiff arising under private law, or where none of the parties objects to the adoption of the procedure by writ or originating summons.’ The purpose of the requirement was to protect the public administration against false, frivolous or tardy challenges to official action: ‘The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision’. An advantage of O.53 was that the court had an opportunity to exercise its discretion at the outset of the proceedings rather than would have happened at that time in proceedings begun by originating summons at the end of the proceedings. This was an important protection in the interests of good administration and for third parties who may be indirectly affected by the proceedings: ‘Unless such an action can be struck out summarily at the outset as an abuse of the process of the court the whole purpose of the public policy to which the change in O.53 was directed would be defeated.’ Though a respondent should not normally be cross examined as to its affidavit, nevertheless, ‘ . . leave to cross-examination should be granted where the interests of justice so require.’ The grant of leave to cross-examine deponents is goverened by the same principles in applications for judicial review as in actions commenced by originating summonses.

Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman
[1983] 2 AC 237, [1982] 3 WLR 1096, [1982] 3 All ER 1124, [1983] UKHL 1
Bailii
RSC O53
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .

Cited by:
Applied – Gillick 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 . .
Cited – Kemper 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 . .
Applied – Regina v City of Westminster ex parte Mbayi Admn 15-Jul-1997
The applicant sought review of the decision of the respondent that she had refused accommodation. She wanted to assert that they had failed to take account of her medical needs.
Held: The application had not proceeded at a proper case, but the . .
Cited – SD, 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.
Cited – Boddington 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 . .
Applied – Cocks 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – Roy 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 – 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Mentioned – QRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Cited – Tweed 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 . .
Applied – King v East Ayrshire Council IHCS 3-Nov-1997
An application for the closure of a school need not be based upon an assessment of school’s pupil capacity as at time of assessment. The court may exercise its discretion to refuse judicial review where that is appropriate, having regard to the . .
Cited – Somerville 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; . .
Cited – Sher 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 . .
Cited – Lumba (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 . .
Cited – Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 9-Nov-2011
The appellant had sought housing assistance. She had been offered accomodation but refused it as unreasonable. The authority declined further assistance. She now appealed against the refusal of the county court judge to set aside the decision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Prisons

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.182909

Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc: CA 14 Mar 1986

Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review

The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a merger situation qualifying for investigation.’
The test for the issue of judicial review proceedings was set out as follows: ‘The first stage test, which is applied upon the application for leave, will lead to a refusal if the applicant has no interest whatsoever and is, in truth, no more than a meddlesome busybody. If, however, the application appears to be otherwise arguable and there is no other discretionary bar, such as dilatoriness on the part of the applicant, the applicant may expect to get leave to apply, leaving the test of interest or standing to be re-applied as a matter of discretion on the hearing of the substantive application. At this second stage, the strength of the applicant’s interest is one of the factors to be weighed in the balance.’
‘Good public administration requires decisiveness and finality, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Dillon LJ, Neill LJ
[1986] 1 WLR 763, [1987] QB 815, (1986) 2 BCC 99086, [1986] EWCA Civ 8, [1986] 2 All ER 257
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 31(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Office 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 . .
Cited – Brown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Cotswold District Council and others ex parte Barrington Parish Council Admn 24-Apr-1997
The parish council sought judicial review of the district council’s planning decision. The respondents complained at the lack of promptness in the application, and suggested a lack of standing to complain. . .
Cited – Walton 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.

Commercial, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.194045

Regina v Take-over Panel, ex parte Datafin PLC: CA 1986

Amenability to judicial review

The issue of amenability to judicial review often requires an examination of the nature of the power under challenge as well as its source: ‘In all the reports it is possible to find enumerations of factors giving rise to the jurisdiction [of judicial review], but it is a fatal error to regard the presence of all those factors as essential or as being exclusive of other factors. Possibly the only essential elements are what can be described as a public element, which can take many different forms, and the exclusion from the jurisdiction of bodies whose sole source of power is a consensual submission to its jurisdiction.’ Where the source of the power did not clearly provide the answer, then the nature of the power fell to be examined.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its functions have public law consequences, then that may, as Mr Lever submitted, be sufficient to bring the body within the reach of judicial review. It may be said that to refer to ‘public law’ in this context is to beg the question. But I do not think it does. The essential distinction, which runs through all the cases to which we were referred, is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other’.
An unincorporated association may be amenable to judicial review, where it would otherwise be ‘without legal personality’.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘In all the reports it is possible to find enumerations of factors giving rise to the jurisdiction, but it is a fatal error to regard the presence of all those factors as essential or as being exclusive of other factors. Possibly the only essential elements are what can be described are a public element, which can take many different forms, and the exclusion from the jurisdiction of bodies whose sole source of power is a consensual submission to its jurisdiction.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Lloyd LJ
[1987] 1 QB 815, [1986] 2 All ER 257, [1986] 1 WLR 763, (1986) 2 BCC 99086, [1986] EWCA Civ 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
Cited – Hampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
Cited – Royal Mail Group Plc v The Consumer Council for Postal Services CA 7-Mar-2007
The Royal Mail appealed a grant of judicial review of the decision of the Post regulator not to penalise the company for its failure to meet its service conditions as regards enforcement of credit terms for bulk mail customers.
Held: The . .
Cited – Boyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others Admn 8-Oct-2009
The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Regina v The Imam of Bury Park Mosque, Luton and others ex parte Sualiman Ali CA 12-May-1993
The court had been asked to intervene in an internal dispute as to the role of an Imam in a mosque community.
Held: The request was denied. The case was not one of public law: ‘ the particular function which the Imam was performing affected . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.181976

Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council: Admn 17 Jul 2008

The applicant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. Amongst other things he said that the information required by the order to be placed with the application had not been provided.
Held: This application was refused for delay. The need for expedition is of particular importance in challenges to grants of planning permission. The recipient is prima facie entitled to implement the permission. The decision had been taken in December 2007, but the application was not lodged until April 2008. The applicant had done all it should to provide the information, and any failing was within the council, but it had not produced any unfairness.

Collins J
[2008] EWHC 1650 (Admin)
Bailii
Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Finn-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.

Planning, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.270902

Regina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell: HL 17 May 1990

The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue delay’ within the meaning of section 31(6).
Lord Goff said: ‘as I read rule 4(1), the effect of the rule is to limit the time within which an application for leave to apply for judicial review may be made in accordance with its terms, i.e. promptly and in any event within three months. The court has however power to grant leave to apply despite the fact that an application is late, if it considers that there is good reason to exercise that power; this it does by extending the period. This, as I understand it, is the reasoning upon which the Court of Appeal reached its conclusion in Reg. v. Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson . Furthermore, the combined effect of section 31(7) and of rule 4(1) is that there is undue delay for the purposes of section 31(6) whenever the application for leave to apply is not made promptly and in any event within three months from the relevant date. It follows that, when an application for leave to apply is not made promptly and in any event within three months, the court may refuse leave on the ground of delay unless it considers that there is good reason for extending the period; but, even if it considers that there is such good reason, it may still refuse leave (or, where leave has been granted, substantive relief) if in its opinion the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause hardship or prejudice (as specified in section 31(6)) or would be detrimental to good administration. I imagine that, on an ex parte application for leave to apply before a single judge, the question most likely to be considered by him, if there has been such delay, is whether there is good reason for extending the period under rule 4(1). Questions of hardship or prejudice, or detriment, under section 31(6) are, I imagine, unlikely to arise on an ex parte application, when the necessary material would in all probability not be available to the judge. Such questions could arise on a contested application for leave to apply, as indeed they did in Reg. v. Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Ex parte Jackson ; but even then, as in that case, it may be thought better to grant leave where there is considered to be good reason to extend the period under rule 4(1), leaving questions arising under section 31(6) to be explored in depth on the hearing of the substantive application. In this way, I believe, sensible effect can be given to these two provisions, without doing violence to the language of either. Unlike the Court of Appeal, I do not consider that rule 4(3) and section 31(7) lead to a circulus inextricabilis, because 31(6) does not limit ‘the time within which an application for judicial review may be made’ (the words used in rule 4(3)). Section 31(6) simply contains particular grounds for refusing leave or substantive relief, not referred to in rule 4(1), to which the court is bound to give effect, independently of any rule of court.’

Lord Goff
[1990] 2 WLR 1320, [1990] 2 AC 738, [1990] UKHL 5, [1990] 2 All ER 434
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Admn 9-Dec-2008
The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order. . .
Cited – Adamson and Others v Paddico (267) Ltd SC 5-Feb-2014
Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
Held: The appeal were solely as to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Agriculture

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.216415

T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications: CA 12 Dec 2008

The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or by judicial review. The CAT had declined jurisdiction. The question now was whether judicial review rovided a satisfactory means of appeal.
Held: The proposal was subject to judicial review, and that remedy was sufficient to satisfy European law. ‘It is not the function of a statutory tribunal to impugn statutory instruments or regulations made pursuant to statutory powers. Challenges to these are classically matters for JR and that is so in the case of the Award.’ The European case law was neutral on this topic.

Tuckey LJ, Jacob LJ, Sir William Aldous
[2008] EWCA Civ 1373, Times 18-Dec-2008
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 31, Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitie-kanslern (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 13-Mar-2007
(Grand Chamber) Principle of judicial protection National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law Procedural autonomy Principles of equivalence and effectiveness . .
Cited – Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitie-kanslern (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 30-Nov-2006
CJEU Effective judicial protection of Community law rights – National rules not providing for self-standing application for annulment of national legislation conflicting with Community law – Right to interim . .
Cited – Mobistar SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications (IBPT) (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 13-Jul-2006
ECJ Telecommunications – Mobile telephony – Number portability – Per-line or per-number set-up costs for the provision of number portability – Article 30 of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) – . .
Cited – JB, Regina (on the Application of) v Responsible Medicial Officer, Dr Haddock CA 11-Jul-2006
JB challenged his detention under the 1983 Act.
Held: The judicial review procedure afforded a sufficient appeal procedure for a detainee. . .
Cited – Office 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 . .
Cited – Regina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others CA 22-Oct-2001
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD.
Held: Where a mental patient sought to . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission and Another HL 4-Mar-1994
The Equal Opportunities Commission sought judicial review to test whether English employment law was in breach of EC law where threshold conditionsions for part time workers to make unfair dismissal and redundancy law claims were discriminatory.
Cited – Connect Austria Gesellschaft fur Telekommunikation GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission, intervener: Mobilkom Austria AG, ECJ 22-May-2003
Europa Telecommunications – Mobile telecommunications services – Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387/EEC – Appeal to an independent body against a decision of the national regulatory authority – Articles 82 EC and . .
Cited – Barber v Staffordshire County Council CA 29-Jan-1996
A dismissal of a claim without consideration by the tribunal created an issue estoppel. Issue estoppel rules apply equally to Industrial Tribunal decisions as elsewhere. Redundancy claim once withdrawn on one ground could not be revived on another. . .
Cited – Manson v Ministry of Defence CA 4-Nov-2005
. .
Cited – Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food ECJ 15-Apr-2008
ECJ Grand Chamber – Fixed-term employment – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work – Abuse through use of successive fixed – term employment contracts – Civil and public servants – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Licensing, Commercial, European

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.278674

Al-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 Secretary of State was correct and Mr Al-Sweady died on the battlefield, then the ECHR could not be invoked.’ The claimant challenged a refusal by the respondent to confirm that it had disclosed all relevant documents. The repeated and unexplained failures by the respondent to make full disclosure had led to a waste of costs in the order of andpound;2,000,000. Additionally the defendant had supplied admittedly false claims for public interest immunity.
Held: ‘the general practice of the court when contested issues of fact arise in applications for judicial review is that ‘in so far as there are factual disputes between the parties, the court is ordinarily obliged to resolve them in favour of the defendant’ However, the court considered that in future in judicial review cases involving human rights questions: ‘cross-examination might occur with increasing regularity in cases where there are crucial factual disputes between the parties relating to jurisdiction of the ECHR and the engagement of its Articles.’
The court criticised as unreliable the evidence of a senior army officer having conduct of the investigation. The court emphasised the need for the Treasury Solicitor to substantially improve its handling of such claims.

Scott Baker LJ, Silber J, Sweeney J
[2010] UKHRR 300, [2010] HRLR 2, [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin), Times 14-Oct-2009
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .
Cited – Woods v Martins Bank Ltd 1958
If a bank chooses to give advice to a customer, then the Bank’s obligation is to advise with ordinary skill and care. The liability is primarily on contract: ‘In my judgment, the limits of a banker’s business cannot be laid down as a matter of law. . .
Cited – Tweed 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 . .
Cited – Middleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed CA 13-Nov-1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others CA 22-Oct-2001
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD.
Held: Where a mental patient sought to . .
Cited – Regina (N) v Dr M and Others CA 6-Dec-2002
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary.
Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Limited CA 30-Oct-2002
Order confirmed. ‘while for my part I have found nothing to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State, the history of this case has demonstrated to my mind that the approach taken to the public decisions that had to be made fell . .
See Also – Al-Sweady and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Defence (PII) Admn 10-Jul-2009
The claimants alleged murder and ill-treatment by the British Armed forces in Iraq. The defendant had failed repeatedly to comply with disclosure orders and an indemnity costs award had been made against him. The defendant had in particular . .
See Also – Al-Sweady and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Defence Admn 10-Jul-2009
The court rejected an application by a further claimant to be added to the action. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Ofsted and Others Admn 23-Apr-2010
The claimant challenged her dismissal as Director of children’s services at the respondent council following an adverse report into the Baby P death identified her department as being responsible. She said that the first defendant had allowed its . .
Cited – Q, Regina (on The Application of) v Q Constabulary and Another Admn 17-Mar-2011
The claimant renewed his request for an order against the defendant that he should be given a place on a witness protection scheme. He had given evidence for the prosecution in a gangland murder trial. A risk assessment had identified a risk ‘real . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Armed Forces, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.375610

Thakrar v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 21 May 2019

Private prosecution discontinuance criminal matter

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the defendant to take over and discontinue his private prosecution. He now sought to appeal against rejection of his request.
Held: The decision had been a decision in a criminal cause or matter, and as such, an appeal lay only (save where allowed under the 1981 Act) to the Supreme Court on a point of law of general public importance, and the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction in the matter.

Davis, Irwin LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 874, [2019] WLR(D) 297
Bailii, WLRD
Administration of Justice Act 1960, Senior Courts Act 1981 18(1)
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.637983

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Regina (on the Application of) v EDF Energy (Northern Offshore Wind) Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: Admn 11 Jul 2008

Sullivan J said: ‘The need for promptness in challenging planning decisions within this policy framework is particularly acute. Delay in challenging decisions in respect of renewable energy projects is more than usually prejudicial to good administration.’

Sullivan J
[2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Finn-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: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.276986

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd: HL 9 Apr 1981

Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation

The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had evaded taxes in the past. The Federation challenged the concession. The Revenue said it did not have standing to make the challenge.
Held: It was relevant to consider the strength of the case that the Commissioners were acting beyond their powers. The Board are charged by statute with the care, management and collection on behalf of the Crown of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. It has a wide discretion as to the best means of obtaining for the national exchequer from the taxes committed to their charge, the highest net return that is practicable having regard to the staff available to them and the cost of collection. The board is under a statutory duty of confidentiality with respect to information about individual taxpayers’ affairs that has been obtained in the course of their duties in making assessments and collecting the taxes; and this imposes a limitation on their managerial discretion. If it were established that the board were proposing to exercise or to refrain from exercising its powers not for reasons of ‘good management’ but for some extraneous or ulterior reason, that action or inaction of the board would be ultra vires and would be a proper matter for judicial review if it were brought to the attention of the court by an applicant with ‘a sufficient interest’ in having the board compelled to observe the law. In the daily discharge of their duties inspectors are constantly required to balance the duty to collect ‘every part’ of due tax against the duty of good management. This conflict of duties can be resolved only by good managerial decisions, some of which will inevitably mean that not all the tax known to be due will be collected.
Lord Diplock justified the modern approach to judicial review: ‘It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public-spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped. The Attorney-General, although he occasionally applies for prerogative orders against public authorities that do not form part of central government, in practice never does so against government departments. It is not, in my view, a sufficient answer to say that judicial review of the actions of officers or departments of central government is unnecessary because they are accountable to Parliament for the way in which they carry out their functions. They are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy, and of that Parliament is the only judge; they are responsible to a court of justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the court is the only judge.’ Section 1 of the 1970 Act gave the Commissioners ‘a wide managerial discretion as to the best means of obtaining for the national exchequer from the taxes committed to their charge, the highest net return that is practicable having regard to the staff available to them and the cost of collection.’ ‘If on quick perusal of the material available the court thinks that it discloses what might on further consideration turn out to be an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought it ought, in the exercise of a judicial discretion, to give leave.’
Lord Wilberforce said that ‘the whole system . . involves that . . matters relating to income tax are between the commissioners and the taxpayer concerned’, and that the ‘total confidentiality of assessments and of negotiations between individuals and the revenue is a vital element in the working of the system’

Lord Scarman, Lord Diplock, Lord Roskill, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Wilberforce
[1982] AC 617, [1981] UKHL 2, [1981] 2 All ER 93, [1981] 2 WLR 722, [1981] UKHL TC – 55 – 133, [1981] 1 WLR 793, [1981] TR 215, 55 TC 24, [1981] STC 344
Bailii, Bailii
Taxes Management Act 1970 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 18-Jun-2003
The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Admn 27-May-1999
The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the . .
Cited – Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue HL 5-May-2005
The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the . .
Cited – Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Tweed 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 . .
Cited – Brown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ex parte Smedley CA 19-Dec-1984
The applicant sought, as a taxpayer, to object to the proposed payment of andpound;121m to the European Community without an Appropriation Act, but under an Order in Council. The claim was that a draft Order in Council laid by the Treasury before . .
Cited – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Nuttall CA 1990
The Revenue and the taxpayer had agreed that the latter should pay andpound;15,000 in consideration of the Revenue taking no proceedings against him for tax penalties or interest. The taxpayer paid only andpound;5,000 and the Revenue sought summary . .
Cited – Stockler v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 22-Sep-2009
The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, . .
Cited – Oxfam v Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2009
The charity appealed against refusal to allow it to reclaim input VAT. It also sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal not to allow it to raise an argument of legitimate expectation. The charity had various subsidiaries conducting . .
Cited – Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
axaReSCS201
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 . .
Cited – Walton 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 . .
Cited – Ingenious Media Holdings Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Oct-2016
The tax payer complained that the Permanent Secretary for Tax had, in an off the record briefing disclosed tax details regarding a film investment scheme. Despite the off the record basis, details were published in a newspaper. His claims had been . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (on the Application of) v The Prime Minister; Cherry QC v Lord Advocate SC 24-Sep-2019
Prerogative act of prorogation was justiciable.
The Prime Minister had prorogued Parliament for a period of five weeks, leaving only a short time for Parliament to debate and act the forthcoming termination of the membership by the UK of the EU. The Scottish Court had decided (Cherry) that the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Cited – JJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Judicial Review, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.184332

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union: HL 5 Apr 1995

Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The claimants, whose members would have recourse to the scheme, sought an order that the Act should be implemented, or the non-statutory scheme declared unlawful.
Held: There was no power in the courts to compel the minister to bring the Act into effect, but his alternate scheme was unlawful. While the Secretary of State is under no legally enforceable duty to bring the main provisions of the Act into force, he must consider when it is appropriate for him to do so and does not enjoy an absolute and unfettered discretion not to do so.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot reasonably be extended to the public at large as opposed to particular individuals or bodies who are directly affected by the executive action under consideration.
A ministers’ intentions are not law, and the courts cannot proceed on the assumption that they will necessarily become law. That is a matter for Parliament to decide in due course.
Lord Lloyd said that the ordinary function of the court was to grant discretionary relief if a minister exceeded the powers conferred on him by Parliament and: ‘In granting such relief the court is not acting in opposition to the legislature, or treading on Parliamentary toes. On the contrary: it is ensuring that the powers conferred by Parliament are exercised within the limits, and for the purposes, which Parliament intended. I am unable to see the difference in this connection between a power to bring legislation into force and any other power.’
Lord Browne-said: ‘In my judgment it would be most undesirable that, in such circumstances, the court should intervene in the legislative process by requiring an Act of Parliament to be brought into effect. That would be for the courts to tread dangerously close to the area over which Parliament enjoys exclusive jurisdiction, namely the making of legislation.’ and ‘There is a second consequence of the power in section 171(1) being conferred for the purpose of bringing the sections into force. As I have said, in my view the Secretary of State is entitled to decide not to bring the sections into force if events subsequently occur which render it undesirable to do so. But if the power is conferred on the Secretary of State with a view to bringing sections into force, in my judgment the Secretary of State cannot himself procure events to take place and rely on the occurrence of those events as the ground for not bringing the statutory scheme into force. In claiming that the introduction of the new tariff scheme renders it undesirable now to bring the statutory scheme into force, the Secretary of State is, in effect, claiming that the purpose of the statutory power has been frustrated by his own act in choosing to introduce a scheme inconsistent with the statutory scheme approved by Parliament.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson set out the ‘inconsistency principle’, saying: ‘It would be most surprising if, in the present day, prerogative powers could be validly exercised by the Executive so as to frustrate the will of Parliament expressed in the statute and, to an extent to pre-empt the decision of Parliament whether or not to continue with the statutory scheme even though the old scheme has been abandoned. It is not for the Executive to state as it did in the White Paper that the provisions in the Act of 1988 ‘will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs’. It is for Parliament not the Executive to repeal legislation. The constitutional history of this country is a history of the prerogative powers of the Crown being made subject to the overriding powers of the democratically elected legislature of the sovereign body. The prerogative powers of the court remain in existence to the extent that Parliament has not expressly or by implication extinguished them.’

Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd, Lord Browne-Wilkinson
[1995] UKHL 3, [1995] 2 AC 513, [1995] 2 All ER 244, [1995] 2 WLR 464
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 171(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others QBD 24-May-1994
The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others CA 10-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into . .
Cited – Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd HL 10-May-1920
A hotel had been requisitioned during the war for defence purposes. The owner claimed compensation. The AG argued that the liability to pay compensation had been displaced by statute giving the Crown the necessary powers.
Held: There is an . .

Cited by:
Cited – BAPIO Action Ltd and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 30-Apr-2008
The House considered whether the Secretary of State for Health acted lawfully in issuing guidance as to the employment of foreign doctors to employing bodies within the National Health Service in April 2006.
Held: The secretary of state’s . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Wales Ex Parte Emery CA 9-Jul-1997
The applicant had sought to have included in the definitive map, a local footpath, and now challenged refusal to include it.
Held: A public right of way may be created by dedication or it may be deemed after actual use by the public over . .
Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Cited – Miller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others QBD 13-Nov-2016
Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority
The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act.
Held: Once the . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (on the Application of) v The Prime Minister; Cherry QC v Lord Advocate SC 24-Sep-2019
Prerogative act of prorogation was justiciable.
The Prime Minister had prorogued Parliament for a period of five weeks, leaving only a short time for Parliament to debate and act the forthcoming termination of the membership by the UK of the EU. The Scottish Court had decided (Cherry) that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Constitutional, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.241351

Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 9 Jun 2014

What is ‘totally without merit’?

The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal to consider the papers and decide whether or not to grant permission.
Held: The appeal failed. the phrase ‘totally without merit’ used in CPR 54.17(1) means ‘bound to fail’ and is not confined to claims which are abusive or vexatious. The court considered that this approach contained two important and sufficient safeguards – one of them being that the application would be carefully considered and the other that ‘the claimant still has access to a judge of the Court of Appeal’. Maurice Kay LJ (with whom the other members of the court agreed) said that CPR 54.12(7) so applied does not detract from the vital constitutional importance of the judicial review jurisdiction and is consistent with the overriding objective of the CPR.
Lord Dyson said: The phrase ‘totally without merit’ is now firmly embedded in our Civil Procedure Rules. It is perhaps unfortunate that the word ‘merit’ is included in the phrase. We are familiar with the notion of a claim being meritorious or having merit, connoting the idea that the claim is just or ‘is in accordance with the merits’, but the word ‘merit’ in the phrase ‘totally without merit’ does not have this meaning. Although the court always seeks to do justice, the purpose of ‘totally without merit’ is to enable the court to root out claims which are bound to fail, and, for the reasons given by my Lord, I would construe that phrase as meaning ‘bound to fail’.
Lord Maurice Kay said: ‘I return to the purpose of CPR 54.12.7. It is not simply the prevention of repetitive applications or the control of abusive or vexatious litigants. It is to confront the fact, for such it is, that the exponential growth in judicial review applications in recent years has given rise to a significant number of hopeless applications which cause trouble to public authorities, who have to acknowledge service and file written grounds of resistance prior to the first judicial consideration of the application, and place an unjustified burden on the resources of the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal. Hopeless cases are not always, or even usually, the playthings of the serially vexatious. In my judgment, it would defeat the purpose of CPR 54.12.7 if TWM were to be given the limited reach for which Mr Malik contends. It would not produce the benefits to public authorities, the Administrative Court or its other users which it was intended to produce. I have no doubt that in this context TWM means no more and no less than ‘bound to fail’. There is no reason to suppose that the judge did not apply that test in that way or that he applied it erroneously in the present case. ‘

Lord Dyson MR, Maurice Kay, Sullivan LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1091, [2014] 1 WLR 3432, [2014] WLR(D) 249
Bailii, WLRD
Civil Procedure Rules 54.12(7)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bhamjee v Forsdick and Others (No 2) CA 25-Jul-2003
The Court set out the range of remedies available to protect court processes from abuse by litigants who persist in making applications totally devoid of merit. The courts are facing very serious contemporary problems created by the activities of . .
Cited – Sengupta v Holmes and Others, Lord Chancellor intervening CA 31-Jul-2002
The appellant had applied for leave to appeal to a single judge, who had refused the application. He appealed and was granted leave by two judges. He then objected when the single judge who had refused leave was included in the panel of judges to . .
Cited – Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) CA 21-May-2004
The claimant had been dissatisfied with the way in which the defendant had administered the estate of his deceased uncle. The court had faced 14 applications by him.
Held: ‘They are all totally devoid of merit. They were all made long after . .

Cited by:
Cited – Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.535440

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Cheblak: CA 1991

Because of the importance placed on the swift and efficient determination of lawfulness of the restraint, habeas corpus applications are given priority in the organisation of the business of the court.
In order to be permitted to present a judicial review application the applicant must raise an arguable case on each of the grounds on which he seeks to challenge the impugned decision.
Lord Donaldson MR explained the difference between habeas corpus and judicial review: ‘Although, as I have said, the 2 forms of relief which the applicant seeks are interrelated on the facts of his case, they are essentially different. A writ of habeas corpus will issue where someone is detained without any authority or the purported authority is beyond the powers of the person authorising the detention and so is unlawful. The remedy of judicial review is available where the decision or action sought to be impugned is within the powers of the person taking it but, due to procedural error, a misappreciation of the law, a failure to take account of relevant matters, a taking account of irrelevant matters or the fundamental unreasonableness of the decision or action, it should never have been taken. In such a case the decision or action is lawful, unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the case of detention, if the warrant, or the underlying decision to deport, were set aside but the detention continued, a writ of habeas corpus would issue.’
. . And: ‘the exercise of the jurisdiction of the courts in cases involving national security is necessarily restricted, not by any unwillingness to act in protection of the rights of individuals or any lack of independence of the executive, but by the nature or the subject matter. National security is the exclusive responsibility of the executive.’

Lord Donaldson MR
[1991] 1 WLR 890
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – TF, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 18-Dec-2008
The claimant had been near to completing a sentence for serious violence. He now challenged the way in which, as his sentenced approached completion, the defendant had sought an order transferring him to a secure mental hospital. He was served with . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.279144

Regina 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 its decision the tribunal had made reference to the expert medical report and thereby had incorporated it in the judgment. This resulted in an error being apparent on the face of the record, thus allowing the appeal court to intervene and make an order of certiorari. The words of the statute, that any decision of a medical appeal tribunal of a question arising under the Act ‘shall be final’, were insufficiently clear to prevent such an order.
Such jurisdiction was well established. Denning LJ said: ‘On looking . . into the old books I find it very well settled that the remedy of certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word ‘final’ is not enough. That only means ‘without appeal’. It does not mean ‘without recourse to certiorari’. It makes the decision final on the facts, but not final on the law. . All the authorities to which we have been referred indicate that this remains true today’.

Denning LJ, Romer LJ, Parker LJ
[1957] 1 QB 574, [1957] 1 All ER 796, [1957] EWCA Civ 1, [1957] 2 WLR 498
Bailii
National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Benefit) Regulations 1948 2(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Plowright 1686
The collectors of chimney tax distrained on the landlord of a cottage. The applicable Act provided that any question about such distress should be ‘heard and finally determined by one or more justices . . ‘ The decision of the justices was in error . .
Cited – Rex v Warnford 1825
The courts have power to order an inferior court to complete or correct an imperfect record. . .
Cited – Williams v Lord Bagot (2) 1824
Abbott CJ: ‘If an inferior court . . send up an incomplete record, we may order them to complete it . . If we are not to order, or allowthe officers of the court below to make a perfect record, which unquestionably they are at liberty to do, it will . .
Cited – Foster’s Case 1614
The words of an Act of parliament ‘shall not bind the King’s Bench, because the pleas there are coram ipso Rege.’ . .
Cited – Smith’s Case 1670
An order of the Commissioners of Sewers was brought before the court. The commissioners pointed to a statute which provided that they should not be compelled to certify or return their proceedings.
Held: The contention was rejected: ‘Yet it . .
Cited – Grenville v Royal College of Physicians 1700
. .
Cited – Taylor (formerly Kraupl) v National Assistance Board CA 1951
Lord Denning spoke as to the power of a court to issue a declaration, ‘The remedy is not excluded by the fact that the determination of the board is by statute made ‘final’. Parliament gives the impress of finality to the decisions of the board only . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Rex v Moreley, Rex v Osborne, Rex v Reeve, Rex v Norris 1760
The Conventicle Act said ‘that no other court whatsoever shall intermeddle with any cause or causes of appeal upon this Act: but they shall be finally determined in the quarter sessions only.’
Held: Certiorari was nevertheless ordered: ‘The . .
Cited – Regina v National Insurance Commissioners, ex parte Timmis QBD 1954
A decision of the Commisioners was said by statute to be final, an accordingly certiorari was not available. . .
Cited – Rex v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd PC 7-Apr-1922
(Alberta) Lord Sumner said: ‘Long before Jervis’s Acts statutes had been passed which created an inferior court, and declared its decisions to be ‘final’ and ‘without appeal’, and again and again the Court of the King’s Bench had held that the . .
Cited – Rex v Jukes 1800
A conviction by magistrates was said to be erroneous on its face, having failed to exclude a possible defence. The prosecutor objected to an application that it be quashed, saying ‘that the defendant having elected to appeal to the sessions, the . .
Cited – Rex v Cashiobury Hunderd Justices KBD 1823
The court looked to the ouster of the its jurisdiction to issue an order of certiorari to a lower court ‘certiorari always lies, unless it expressly taken away, and an appeal never lies, unless it is expressly given by the statute . . .’ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Cited – In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market . .
Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Cited – EBA v Advocate General for Scotland SC 21-Jun-2011
The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to . .
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.197036

Regina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Everett: CA 20 Oct 1988

A decision taken under the royal prerogative whether or not to issue a passport was subject to judicial review, although relief was refused on the facts of the particular case.
Taylor LJ summarised the effect of the GCHQ case as making clear that the powers of the court ‘cannot be ousted merely by invoking the word ‘prerogative’: ‘The majority of their Lordships indicated that whether judicial review of the exercise of a prerogative power is open depends upon the subject matter and in particular whether it is justiciable. At the top of the scale of executive functions under the Prerogative are matters of high policy, of which examples were given by their Lordships; making treaties, making war, dissolving parliament, mobilising the armed forces. Clearly those matters and no doubt a number of others are not justiciable but the grant or refusal of a passport is in a quite different category. It is a matter of administrative decision affecting the right of individuals and their freedom of travel. It raises issues which are just as justiciable as, for example, the issues arising in immigration cases.’
O’Connor LJ said that the grant or withdrawal of a British passport is an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, in the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Taylor LJ, O’Connor LJ
[1989] 1 QB 811, [1988] EWCA Civ 7, [1989] QB 811, [1989] 2 WLR 224
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others CA 12-Dec-2006
The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect.
Cited – Gentle, Regina (on the Application of) and Another v The Prime Minister and Another HL 9-Apr-2008
The appellants were mothers of two servicemen who had died whilst on active service in Iraq. They appealed refusal to grant a public inquiry. There had already been coroners inquests. They said that Article 2 had been infringed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte Ferhut Butt Admn 1-Jul-1999
Lightman J said: ‘The general rule is well established that the courts should not interfere in the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive, most particularly where such interference is likely to have foreign policy repercussions . . This . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Cited – Sandiford, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs SC 16-Jul-2014
The appellant a British Citizen awaited execution in Singapore after conviction on a drugs charge. The only way she might get legal help for a further appeal would be if she was given legal aid by the respondent. She sought assistance both on Human . .
Cited – Youssef 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 . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .
Cited – Miller, Regina (on the Application of) v The Prime Minister; Cherry QC v Lord Advocate SC 24-Sep-2019
Prerogative act of prorogation was justiciable.
The Prime Minister had prorogued Parliament for a period of five weeks, leaving only a short time for Parliament to debate and act the forthcoming termination of the membership by the UK of the EU. The Scottish Court had decided (Cherry) that the . .
Cited – Orire-Banjo, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-Dec-2020
Case concerning the rightful owner of an identity. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.247347

Doherty and others v Birmingham City Council: HL 30 Jul 2008

The House was asked ‘whether a local authority can obtain a summary order for possession against an occupier of a site which it owns and has been used for many years as a gipsy and travellers’ caravan site. His licence to occupy the site has come to an end. He has no enforceable right to remain there under English property law. But he claims that his removal would violate his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Held: The principal objection was that the council had abused the privileges given to it. Enabling a court to extend or shorten the time for compliance with any order is no different in substance from long-existing procedural powers under the former rules of court. In the light of the developments in the Strasbourg jurisprudence the House developed the law by acknowledging that the traditional approach to judicial review would have to be expanded, particularly to permit the court to make its own assessment of the relevant facts.

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
[2008] UKHL 57, [2008] 3 WLR 636, Times 14-Aug-2008, [2008] UKHRR 1022, [2008] HRLR 47, [2008] 31 EG 89, [2008] HLR 45, [2008] BLGR 695, [2009] 1 AC 367, [2009] 1 P and CR 11, [2008] NPC 91, [2008] BLGR 695, [2009] 1 All ER 653
Bailii, HL
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 2491), Caravan Sites Act 1968 1, Mobile Homes Act 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Doherty v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 21-Dec-2006
The council sought possession of the land occupied by the appellant, a traveller, so that it could use the land for temporary accomodation for other travellers. . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Kay, Gorman, etc v London Borough of Lambeth, London and Quadrant Housing Trust CA 20-Jul-2004
The defendant local authority had licenced houses to a housing trust, which in turn granted sub-licences to the claimants who were applicants for housing under homelessness provisions, and who now asserted that they became secure tenants of the . .
Cited – Regina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1972
The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency. . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Cited – Kansal v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Apr-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) – . .
Cited – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Cited – McCann v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-May-2008
The applicant and his wife were secure joint tenants of a house of a local authority under section 82. Their marriage broke down, and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children of the marriage. She returned after obtaining a . .
Cited – Smith (on Behalf of the Gypsy Council) v Buckland CA 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed an order requiring them to leave caravan pitches managed by the council.
Held: The court referred to the absence of procedural safeguards to which, in view of their vulnerable position, gipsies were entitled. . .
Cited – Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk HL 5-Dec-1991
One tenant of two joint tenants of a house left and was granted a new tenancy on condition that the existing one of the house, still occupied by her former partner, was determined. She gave a notice to quit as requested, the council claimed . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ali v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
Cited – Knowsley Housing Trust v White; Honeygan-Green v London Borough of Islington; Porter v Shepherds Bush Housing Association HL 10-Dec-2008
The House considered situations where a secure or assured tenancy had been made subject to a suspended possession order and where despite the tenant failing to comply with the conditions, he had been allowed to continue in occupation.
Held: . .
Cited – McGlynn v Welwyn Hatfield District Council CA 1-Apr-2009
The appellant was a non-secure tenant of the respondent. It had served a notice to quit and he now appealed against an order for possession on public law grounds.
Held: There had been a delay between the issue of the notice to quit and the . .
Cited – Doran v Liverpool City Council CA 3-Mar-2009
The claimant sought to set aside an order requiring him to give up possession of a caravan pitch held under the 1968 Act.
Held: The decision to serve a notice to quit which was reasonable on the facts known to the local authority at the time . .
Cited – Central 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 . .
Cited – Barber v London Borough of Croydon CA 11-Feb-2010
The tenant who suffered learning and behavioural difficulties appealed against an order for possession of his council flat. He had become aggressive with the caretaker. The council sought possession, and he defended the claim saying that the council . .
Cited – Salford City Council v Mullen CA 30-Mar-2010
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that . .
Cited – Coombes, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 8-Mar-2010
The landlord council brought proceedings for possession. The tenant (C) had remained in possession after his mother’s death, but enjoyed no second statutory succession. He had lived there since 1954 when he was six. C sought a declaration of . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 3-Nov-2010
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his . .
Cited – London Borough of Hounslow v Powell, Leeds City Council v Hall etc SC 23-Feb-2011
In each case the tenant occupied the property as his home, but was not a secure tenant of the local authority. The Court was asked whether, in granting a possession order in such a case, the court was obliged to consider the proportionality of the . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Henthorn QBD 4-Feb-2011
lsc_henthornQBD11
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the . .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Welcomed – Kay And Others v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Oct-2008
. .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd SC 11-Mar-2015
Appeal about the proper approach of the courts where the defendant to a claim for possession of his home raises a defence of unlawful discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, by the claimant landlord. In particular, the issue is whether . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.271274

Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison: HL 1988

The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; they are subject to the supervision of the courts in their compliance with the rules of natural justice. A governor carrying out his disciplinary functions under the English Prisons Rules 1964 ‘is not a mere servant or alter ego of the Secretary of State but a statutory officer performing statutory duties.’
The adequacy of the reach of any alternative remedy will be an important consideration in deciding whether or not it is appropriate for judicial review to be sought.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton said that the susceptibility of a decision to the supervision of the courts must depend, in the ultimate analysis, upon the nature and consequences of the decision and not upon the personality or individual circumstances of the person called on to make the decision.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘The governor of a prison holds an office created by the Act of 1952 and exercises certain powers under rules 47 to 55 of the Rules of 1964 [the disciplinary provisions then in force] which are conferred upon him and him alone.’
Lord Bridge went on to address the reasoning in an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, which had distinguished between prison governors and boards of visitors on the basis that governors were servants or agents of the Secretary of State: ‘A prison governor may in general terms be aptly described as the servant of the Secretary of State, but he is not acting as such when adjudicating upon a charge of a disciplinary offence. He is then exercising the independent power conferred on him by the rules. The Secretary of State has no authority to direct the governor, any more than the board of visitors, as to how to adjudicate on a particular charge or what punishment should be awarded. If a Home Office official sought to stand behind the governor at a disciplinary hearing and tell him what to do, the governor would properly send him packing.’

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1988] AC 533, [1988] UKHL 16, [1988] 1 All ER 485, [1988] 2 WLR 290
Bailii
Prisons Rules 1964
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Cited – Al-Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
Prisoners were disciplined after refusing to be squat searched, saying that the procedure was humiliating and that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect them of any offence against prison discipline. The officer who had been involved in . .
Cited – Somerville 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; . .
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Erlam and Others v Rahman and Another QBD 23-Apr-2015
The petitioners had alleged that the respondent, in his or his agent’s conduct of his campaign to be elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets in London in May 2014, had engaged in corrupt and illegal practices.
Held: The election was set aside for . .
Cited – Watch 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 . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Prisons, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.197037

Cocks 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.
Held: Where the action impugned the authority’s performance of its statutory duties as a pre-condition to enforcing private law rights, the correct way was to do so within judicial review proceedings. The authority’s decision could not be challenged by an ordinary action. The House attached particular importance to the protection given to public authorities by Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to the extent that leave to bring proceedings was required and a time limit imposed subject to good reason for extending it.

Lord Bridge
[1983] 2 AC 286, [1982] 3 WLR 1121, [1982] 3 All ER 1135, [1981] UKHL 10
Bailii
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – O’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:
Applied – O’Rourke v Mayor etc of the London Borough of Camden HL 12-Jun-1997
The claimant had been released from prison and sought to be housed as a homeless person. He said that his imprisonment brought him within the category of having special need. He also claimed damages for the breach.
Held: The Act was intended . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Mohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
Cited – Hussain v Mehlman CC 5-Mar-1992
(County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .
Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.180465

SSP Health Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Care Quality Commission: Admn 12 Aug 2016

Redress for unamended report

‘Suppose that a regulator, charged by Parliament with the responsibility for the assessment and rating of certain bodies providing services to the public, affords an inspected entity the opportunity to make factual corrections to its draft report prior to publication. The report proposes to make adverse fact findings that could be demonstrated by objective evidence to be incorrect, misleading, or unfair, but the regulator refuses to change the draft when the errors are pointed out to it. In the absence of any appeal process, what redress does the aggrieved party have?’
Held: Damages including interest were awarded.

Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2086 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At Admn – SSP Health Ltd v The National Health Service Litigation Authority (Primary Care Appeals Service) and Others CA 25-Nov-2020
The issue on this appeal is whether an adjudicator appointed to resolve a dispute under an NHS contract made a lawful decision not to award interest on sums that she considered due. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.568842

Watch 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 support it. The respondent argued that the Charity should first use the statutory remedies available to it in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The matter would clearly require consideration of assorted Human Rights issues, but the First tier tribunal would be able to include such matters. The courtw as accordingly satisfied that the discretion to allow judicial review should not be exercised.

Dove J
[2014] EWHC 4135 (Admin)
Bailii
Charities Act 2011 46
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Baker, Regina (on the Application of) v Devon County Council CA 21-Dec-1992
The plaintiffs appealed against orders dismissing claims for judicial review. They had challenged the intended closure of residential homes for old people. The plaintiffs said that there had been inadequate consultation, and the Councils argued that . .
Cited – Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; . .
Cited – Regina v Devon County Council Ex Parte Baker, Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Broxson CA 22-Feb-1993
A Local Authority considering closing a residential home did not have a duty to notify and consult with each resident who might be affected, but did have a duty to act fairly, and to give sufficiently prominent notice and sufficient time to allow . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Willford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .
Cited – Willford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.542591

Faisaltex 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 import of counterfeit clothing and of money laundering.
Held: The burden of showing that the judge acted ultra vires in issuing a warrant or that the police acted unlawfully when executing a warrant rests upon the claimant. There had been a delay, arising from attempts to reach agreement with HMRC, but that was not related to the lawfulness of the warrants themselves. The claim was not filed promptly as required.
However, it was not clear why the fact that the firm of solicitors had acted on five appeals by the claimants and not a lesser number had any significance as to the use of search warrants rather than a production order for the firm of solicitors. There had been no rational basis for the warrant to search the solicitors’ offices.
An accountant however would normally have a much closer connection with the business under suspicion.
Once the judge was satisfied on the issue of legally privileged material, there was no reason why the section 8 warrants should not specify computers and similar items amongst the material to be seized if there were reasonable grounds for believing that they contained relevant evidence, albeit that they might also contain irrelevant material.
A computer and its hard disk were capable of being ‘material’ within section 8(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Keene LJ, Griffith Williams J
[2008] EWHC 2832 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2008, [2009] 1 Cr App R 37, [2009] Lloyds Rep FC 160, [2009] Crim LR 358, [2009] 1 WLR 168
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Maidstone Crown Court ex parte Waitt QBD 1988
The solicitor applicant challenged the grant of a search order under section 9.
Held: The order was quashed. The court underlined the need for judges to be scrupulous in discharging their responsibilities so as to ensure that use of the . .
Cited – Regina v Guildhall Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Primlaks Holdings Co. (Panama) Inc 1990
The exercise of a power of search is a draconian power. . .
Cited – Regina v Lewes Crown Court ex parte Hill 1991
Bingham LJ said: ‘The Police and Criminal Evidence Act governs a field in which there are two very obvious public interests. There is, first of all, a public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, there is a . .
Cited – Redknapp and Another v Commissioner of the City of London Police and Another Admn 23-May-2008
The claimant challenged the legality of a search warrant and the method of its execution on his home. He complained that the police had ensured publicity for the execution of the warrant.
Held: The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be . .
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bright; Regina v Same, Ex Parte Rusbridger QBD 21-Jul-2000
An order was made for a journalist to disclose to the police material disclosed to him in connection with a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. The journalist appealed the order, on the basis that it was in effect an order that he . .
Cited – Finn-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 . .
Cited – Regina v Cotswold District Council and others ex parte Barrington Parish Council Admn 24-Apr-1997
The parish council sought judicial review of the district council’s planning decision. The respondents complained at the lack of promptness in the application, and suggested a lack of standing to complain. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Southampton Crown Court ex parte J and P 21-Dec-1992
A special material warrant was quashed, partly because it was too widely drawn. It was suspected that there had been thefts from the solicitor’s firms client account. Watkins LJ discussed the need for a judge to give reasons for a decision under . .
Approved – H, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Admn 23-Oct-2002
The appellant sought judicial review of the seizure by the respondents of computers found on its premises in the course of executing warrants under the Act, even though the computers might contain other matters not relevant to any investigation.
Cited – Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others v Serious Fraud Office Admn 2002
There was to be an investigation by the SFO into allegations that some in the pharmaceutical industry were dishonestly increasing the price charged for drugs supplied to the NHS. On 27th March 2002 District Judge Nicholas Evans received written . .
Cited – McGrath v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Another HL 12-Jul-2001
Police were not liable for false imprisonment after arresting a person named in a warrant which had been issued by another police force as a result of one person who was arrested falsely giving the other person’s name. The warrant might have been . .

Cited by:
See Also – Faisaltex 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 . .
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Judicial Review, Legal Professions

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.278216

Law v National Greyhound Racing Club Limited: CA 29 Jul 1983

The plaintiff alleged abuse of the discretion conferred on the club by the rules. His trainer’s licence had been suspended. He said that it was contrary to an implied term of an agreement between the trainer and the racing club that any action taken would be reasonable and fair and made on reasonable grounds. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of invalidity of the decision. The question before the court, was whether the special procedures which Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court applied to applications for judicial review should have been followed.
Held: The power of the Stewards of the respondent racing club to impose penalties for breach of the Rules on owners of greyhounds, derives from a contract between the NGRC and owners and all those who took part in greyhound racing in stadia licensed by the NGRC. The status of the stewards was that of a domestic tribunal. By Rule 2 every owner and holder of a licence is deemed to have read the Rules and to submit himself to them.
The National Greyhound Racing Club was not amenable to judicial review. It was a matter of private law which could be dealt with by originating summons
Lawton LJ said: ‘A stewards’ inquiry under the defendants’ Rules of Racing concerned only those who voluntarily submitted themselves to the stewards’ jurisdiction. There was no public element in the jurisdiction itself. Its exercise, however, could have consequences from which the public benefited, as, for example by the stamping out of malpractices, and from which individuals might have their rights restricted by, for example, being prevented from employing a trainer whose licence had been suspended. Consequences affecting the public generally can flow from the decisions of many domestic tribunals . . the courts have always refused to use the orders of certiorari to review the decisions of domestic tribunals.’ and ‘In my judgment, such powers as the stewards had to suspend the plaintiff’s licence were derived from a contract between him and the defendants. This was so for all who took part in greyhound racing in stadia licensed by the defendants. A stewards’ enquiry under the defendants’ Rules of Racing concerned only those who voluntarily submitted themselves to the stewards’ jurisdiction. There was no public element in the jurisdiction itself.’
Fox LJ said: ‘Accordingly, in my view, the authority of the stewards to suspend the license of the plaintiff derives wholly from a contract between him and the defendants. I see nothing to suggest that the defendants have rights or duties relating to members of the public as such. What the defendants do in relation to the control of greyhound racing may affect the public, or a section of it, but the defendants’ powers in relation to the matters with which this case is concerned are contractual.’
Slade LJ said: ‘the rules of racing of the NGRC and its decision to suspend the plaintiff in purported compliance with those rules have not been made in the field of public law. Furthermore, its authority to perform judicial or quasi judicial functions in respect of persons holding licenses from it is not derived from statute or statutory instruments or from the Crown. It is derived solely from contract. Rule 2 of the NGRC’s Rules of Racing provides that every person who is the holder of a license shall be deemed to have read the rules and to submit himself to them and to the jurisdiction of the NGRC. The relief, by way of declaration and injunction, sought by the plaintiff in his originating summons is correspondingly based primarily and explicitly on alleged breach of contract.’

Lawton, Fox, Slade LLJ
[1983] 1 WLR 1302, [1983] EWCA Civ 6, [1983] 3 All ER 300
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Flaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
Cited – Regina v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan CA 4-Dec-1992
No Judicial Review of Decisions of Private Body
Despite the wide range of its powers, the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club remains a domestic tribunal. Judicial review is not available to a member. Tne relationship is in contract between the club and its member. Sir Thomas Bingham MR: . .
Cited – Mullins, Regina (on the Application of) v The Jockey Club Admn 17-Oct-2005
The claimant’s horse had been found after a race to have morphine in his system. It was not thought that the claimant was at fault, but the horse was disqualifed. He sought judicial review of the decision.
Held: The decision was a disciplinary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.220132

Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp: CA 4 Nov 2008

The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was appropriate for the court to enquire as to the claimants arrangements with his lawyers as to costs, including any success fee negotiated. In this case the parties had not followed the recommended practice, and the defendant had not applied for a cap on the costs awarded, and ‘In the rare case in which it is necessary to have an oral hearing, it should last a short time as contemplated in Corner House and it should take place in good time before the hearing of the substantive application for judicial review so that the parties may know the position as to their potential liabilities for costs in advance of incurring the costs.’
On an appeal, the court should consider the continuation of the PCO on any application for leave. Without wishing itself to judge the prospects of success, the PCO had been properly limited on this appeal, so that Buglife did face some risk if it proceeded.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Maurice Lay LJ, Stanley Burnton LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1209, Times 18-Nov-2008
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp and Another Admn 22-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust Admn 26-Nov-2007
Applicaton for protective costs order. The court considered the report of a working group on such orders which said that to be suitable for a PCO a case must be a ‘public interest case’, but found it difficult to define what sort of case fell within . .
Cited – Bullmore and Another v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust Admn 9-Jul-2007
Challenge to Trust’s decision to close local hospital. . .
Cited – Bullmore, Regina (on the Application of) v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust CA 8-Jun-2007
Renewed application for protective costs order. . .
Cited – King v Telegraph Group Ltd CA 18-May-2004
The defendant appealed against interim costs orders made in the claim against it for defamation.
Held: The general power of cost capping measures available to courts were available also in defamation proceedings. The claimant was being . .

Cited by:
See Also – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Another CA 28-Jan-2009
Buglife appealed against refusal of judicial review of a decision to grant planning permission for the site of a former power station saying that it would adversely affect the environment for invertebrate animals. It now sought a protective costs . .
Cited – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Environment, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.277386

Finn-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 timely and in any event made within three months. Both conditions apply. There was no special ‘six week’ limit for challenges to planning consents. The judge had been correct to find that the application was not timely, but that was not the only consideration: ‘If there is a strong case for saying that the permission was ultra vires, then this court might in the circumstances be willing to grant permission to proceed.’ The SEI gave a sufficient indication to any interested reader that there was raw wind data available and that it could be obtained on request. In those circumstances the information was made available in the sense required by the 2004 Regulations and by the European Directive. It follows that there was no breach of either.

Keene, Thomas, Hughes LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1067, [2008] NPC 108, [2008] 41 EG 157, [2009] JPL 493, [2009] 1 WLR 1687, [2009] Env LR 17
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Civil Procedure Rules 54.5(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council Admn 17-Jul-2008
The applicant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. Amongst other things he said that the information required by the order to be placed with the application had not been provided.
Cited – Regina v Cotswold District Council and others ex parte Barrington Parish Council Admn 24-Apr-1997
The parish council sought judicial review of the district council’s planning decision. The respondents complained at the lack of promptness in the application, and suggested a lack of standing to complain. . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another CA 19-Jul-2006
The court considered the consequences of delay in applications for judicial review: ‘It is important that those parties, and indeed the public generally, should be able to proceed on the basis that the decision is valid and can be relied on, and . .
Cited – Regina v Ceredigion County Council ex parte McKeown Admn 6-Jun-1997
The claimant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm. Laws J said that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a case in which leave to move for judicial review would be granted to attack a planning permission when . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
Cited – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Regina (on the Application of) v EDF Energy (Northern Offshore Wind) Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Admn 11-Jul-2008
Sullivan J said: ‘The need for promptness in challenging planning decisions within this policy framework is particularly acute. Delay in challenging decisions in respect of renewable energy projects is more than usually prejudicial to good . .
Cited – Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston CA 15-Mar-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Faisaltex 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 . .
Cited – Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v Lord Chancellor Admn 27-Aug-2010
No Right to Legal Aid for Inquest
The claimant challenged the refusal to her of assistance toward her legal costs in securing representation at the coroner’s inquest into the bombings in London in July 2005. He husband was suspected of being one of the suicide bombers.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.276804

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer: HL 2 Jan 1986

Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate

The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s decision that they had accommodation. They now appealed reversal of that decision by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. A person was not homeless even if it was not reasonable for her to have to continue to occupy the accommodation to which she was entitled. The question of suitability of housing offered to a claimant is one for the authority alone, to be set aside only if its decision is verging on the absurd. The 1985 Act: ‘is an Act to assist persons who are homeless, not an Act to provide them with homes . . It is intended to provide for the homeless a lifeline of last resort; not to enable them to make inroads into the local authority’s waiting list of applicants for housing. Some inroads there probably are bound to be, but in the end the local authority will have to balance the priority needs of the homeless on the one hand and the legitimate aspirations of those on their housing waiting list on the other hand.’ and ‘Although the action or inaction of a local authority is clearly suseptible to judicial review where they have misconstrued the Act, or abused their powers or otherwise acted perversely, I think that great restraint should be exercised in giving leave to proceed by judicial review. The plight of the homeless is a desperate one, and the plight of the applicants in the present case commands the deepest sympathy. But it is not, in my opinion, appropriate that the remedy of judicial review, which is a discretionary remedy, should be made use of to monitor the actions of local authorities under the Act save in the exceptional case. The ground upon which the courts will review the exercise of an administrate discretion is abuse of power – eg bad faith, a mistake in construing the limits of the power, a procedural irregularity, or unreasonableness in the Wednesbury sense – unreasonableness verging on an absurdity: see the speech of Lord Scarman in Reg. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] AC 240, 247-248. Where the existence or non-existence of a fact is left to the judgment and discretion of a public body and that fact involves a broad spectrum ranging from the obvious to the debatable to the just conceivable, it is the duty of the court to leave the decision of that fact to the public body to whom Parliament has entrusted the decision-making power save in a case where it is obvious that the public body, consciously or unconsciously, are acting perversely.’
Lord Brightman said: ‘My Lords, I am troubled at the prolific use of judicial review for the purpose of challenging the performance by local authorities of their function under the Act of 1977. Parliament intended the local authority to be the judge of fact. The Act abounds with the formula when, or if, the housing authority are satisfied as to this, or that, or have reason to believe this, or that. Although the action or inaction of a local authority is clearly susceptible to judicial review where they have misconstrued the Act, or abused their powers or otherwise acted perversely, I think that great restraint should be exercised in giving leave to proceed by judicial review. The plight of the homeless is a desperate one, and the plight of the applicants in the present case commands the deepest sympathy. But it is not, in my opinion, appropriate that the remedy of judicial review, which is a discretionary remedy, should be made use of to monitor the actions of local authorities under the Act save in the exceptional case. The ground upon which the courts will review the exercise of an administrative discretion is abuse of power- e.g. bad faith, a mistake in construing the limits of the power, a procedural irregularity, or unreasonableness in the Wednesbury sense – unreasonableness verging on an absurdity: see the speech of Lord Scarman in Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex Parte Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] A.C. 240, 247-248. Where the existence or non-existence of a fact is left to the judgment and discretion of a public body and that fact involves a broad spectrum ranging from the obvious to the debatable to the just conceivable, it is the duty of the court to leave the decision of that fact to the public body to whom Parliament has entrusted the decision-making power save in a case where it is obvious that the public body, consciously or unconsciously, are acting perversely.’

Lord Brightman, Lords Keith, Roskill, Brandon and Mackay
[1986] AC 484, [1986] UKHL 1, [1986] 2 WLR 259, [1986] 1 All ER 467
Bailii
Housing Act 1985, Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council HL 12-Dec-1985
The House heard a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s assessment of the proper level of expenditure by a local authority.
Held: A ‘low intensity’ of review is applied to cases involving issues ‘depending essentially on political . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ali v Westminster City Council; Nairne v Camden London Borough Council CA 24-Jul-1998
The County Court had no power to grant an interim injunction without statutory provision. No power existed either to order the Local Authority to provide accommodation to a homelessness applicant pending a decision on the review.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Brighton and Hove Council ex parte Nacion (2) CA 1-Feb-1999
The applicant sought review of a decision not to offer him temporary accomodation pending an appeal following a review of a refusal to offer him emergency accomodation. He had become homeless as a result of imprisonment.
Held: The section gave . .
Cited – Office 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 . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira CA 20-May-1998
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of . .
Cited – ex parte Di Dominico 1989
The applicant was an epileptic who required careful medical supervision, but the local authority did not regard her as vulnerable for housing purposes.
Held: Review was declined. The matter was one for the authority exercising its discretion. . .
Cited – Braintree District Council v Alisdair Stuart Thompson CA 7-Mar-2005
Recovery of excess housing benefit paid under fraudulent claim. A social security commissioner could substitute jis own judgment on a question of law to that of the appeal tribunal, but on a question of fact it should not interfere. . .
Cited – Regina v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex p Bayani 1990
The court set out authoritative guidance as to the scope of a reviewing court’s power to interfere on the ground of the insufficiency of inquiry by a local authority to whom a homelessness application had been made. Neill LJ said: ‘(1) The duty to . .
Cited – Cramp v Hastings Borough Council CA 29-Jul-2005
Cases challenged successful appeals by applicants for housing for homelessness, where a county court had ordered a second review of the application. . .
Cited – Calgin, 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 . .
Cited – Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others CA 17-May-2006
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild CA 16-Mar-2007
The tenant held a secure tenancy of a first floor flat of the Council. She was severely disabled and argued that the danger of injury meant that she should be allowed to occupy the empty ground floor flat. She complained at the way the authority had . .
Cited – London 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 . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council CA 17-Apr-2008
The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it . .
Cited – Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond Upon Thames HL 4-Feb-2009
The father had been awarded shared residence for three children. He asked the local authority to provide appropriate housing.
Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded.
‘When any family court decides with whom the children of separated . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – Yemshaw v London Borough of Hounslow SC 26-Jan-2011
The appellant sought housing after leaving her home to escape domestic violence. The violence was short of physical violence, and the authority had denied a duty to rehouse her. She said that the term ‘domestic violence’ in the Act was not intended . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Waltham Forest v Maloba, The Law Society CA 4-Dec-2007
The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now . .
Cited – Sharif v The London Borough of Camden SC 20-Feb-2013
The council appealed against a decision that having found Ms Sharif to be homeless, they had a duty also to house her sick father and sister as family members in one accomodation unit.
Held: The Council’s appeal succeeded (Lord Kerr . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Cited – Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest SC 20-May-2015
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
Cited – Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea SC 10-May-2017
The appellant, applying for housing as a homeless person, had rejected the final property offered on the basis that its resemblance to the conditions of incarceration in Iran, from which she had fled, would continue and indeed the mental . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.200288

Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia): Admn 10 Feb 1997

The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical exercise of comparing previous delays in those cases with the delays in the instant applications, and hard and fast rules should not be sought. Justices should fully examine the applications for delay, their reasons and consequences for the parties. They must decide what is fair in all those circumstances. The divisional Court will only interfere with the exercise of the Justices’ discretion where a refusal will cause substantial unfairness to one of the parties, arising when a defendant cannot present his case. Defendants should not be permitted to frustrate a speedy trial without substantial grounds. Summary justice is speedy justice. This is not merely administrative convenience. Last minute adjournments deprive other defendants of speedy trials when recollections are fresh, and delays cause frustration in Justices. The rulings of the divisional court should not inhibit Justices from refusing repeated applications for adjournments where appropriate.

Lord Justice Bingham,
[1997] EWHC Admin 119, [1998] QB 110, [1997] 2 Cr App R 340, [1997] 2 WLR 854
Bailii
Magistrates Court Act 1980 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Macclesfield Justices, ex parte Jones 1983
A defendant who is guilty of deliberately seeking to postpone a trial without good reason has no cause for complaint if his application for an adjournment is refused. . .
Cited – Regina v Bolton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Merna; Regina v Richmond Justices, ex parte Haines 1991
The divisional court should intervene where a defendant has been deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case because of his own unavoidable absence. . .
Cited – Regina v Bradford Justices, ex parte Wilkinson 1990
A magistrates’ court should grant a defendant’s application for an adjournment where a witness was absent, and his evidence went to an issue critical to the defence case. . .
Cited – Regina v Bristol Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Rowles 1994
A court should grant an adjournment where a party’s witness was unable to attend, and that witness’ evidence was critical for a real issue in the case. Adjournments give rise to a proper sense of frustration in Justices confronted with frequent . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the . .
Cited – Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school.
Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school’s head teacher, first to the . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Stavrinou, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horseferry Road Justices Admn 22-Feb-2006
The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned . .
Cited – Regina v Haringey Justices Employment ex parte Julian Branco Admn 24-Oct-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his conviction saying that the chairwoman knew his mother and was antipathetic to her, and had shown bias in the trial.
Held: There had been confusion, but no real risk of bias. The review was refused. . .
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Cited – Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another QBD 14-Jul-2016
The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Owadally and Another Admn 17-May-2017
Defendant must plea to charge, and not counsel
The defendants had, through their barrister, entered pleas of guilty, but the crown court had declared the convictions invalid because this had to have been done by the defendants personally, and remitted the cases and the confiscation proceedings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.137064

Weaver, Regina (on the Application of) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: Admn 24 Jun 2008

An assured tenant sought to challenge a possession order made for rent arrears. He said that as a public body the landlord had a duty under human rights law to pursue all posssible alternate solutions before seeking possession.
Held: The property was one taken over by the Association as former local authority housing stock and therefore in managing the housing the Association, a registered social landlord, was exercising a public function, and its decisions were subject to judicial review. The Association had accepted additional public duties under the 1996 Act.

Richards LJ, Swift J
[2008] EWHC 1377 (Admin), Times 08-Jul-2008, [2009] 1 All ER 17
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 170, Homelessness Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – YL v Birmingham City Council and Others HL 20-Jun-2007
The House was asked whether a private care home when providing accommodation and care to a resident under arrangements with a local authority the 1948 Act, is performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human . .

Cited by:
At First Instance – Weaver v London Quadrant Housing Trust CA 17-Feb-2009
The respondent sought leave to appeal against a finding that as a registered social landlord it was exercising a public function and was a hybrid public authority.
Held: Leave was granted. A protective costs order was made for the respondent . .
Appeal from – London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver, Regina; Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening CA 18-Jun-2009
The Trust appealed against a finding that in terminating an assured tenancy transferred to it from a local authority, it had acted as a hybrid public authority and was subject to controls under the 1998 Act.
Held: (Rix LJ dissenting). The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.270335

Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: Admn 6 Nov 2019

Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act

The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at the scene of which Superintendent McMillan was present on the day so that there was no power to impose a condition under section 14 of the 1986 Act: ‘a public assembly’ must be in a particular location to which the public or any section of the public has access, which is wholly or partly open to the air, and which location can be fairly described as a ‘scene’. The situation here was that there were several locations, and the officer issuing the order was not physically present, and if his assertion that the area was Greater London, then he was not the most senior officer in that area.
‘a public assembly in section 14 must be in a location to which the public or any section of the public has access, which is wholly or partly open to the air, and which can be fairly described as a scene. Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if co-ordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not one public assembly within the meaning of section 14(1) of the 1986 Act.’
Where there is already a claimant or claimants with standing to bring judicial review, there is no reason to accord standing to additional parties: ‘it is important to remind parties of the need to ensure that those who bring claims for additional review are limited to those best placed to bring the claim. This is because adding unnecessary claimant is likely to increase the costs of the litigation, if only by requiring solicitors to send out extra reports on the litigation. It is also because parties to an action are in a distinct position, for example by receiving a confidential draft of the judgement of the time when it is circulated to the parties for typographical and other corrections before it is handed down in court.’

Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain
[2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 617, [2020] HRLR 2, [2020] 1 WLR 519
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD
Public Order Act 1986 14(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1973
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are complete once there is agreement between two or more persons. An overt act is not itself an ‘element’ of the conspiracy.
There is a crime of unlawfully assembling in such a manner as to disturb . .
Cited – Kent v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-May-1981
The Court dismissed a challenge brought on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to a condition imposed under section 3(3) of the 1936 Act prohibiting all processions in the Metropolitan Police District. . .
Cited – Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 13-Jun-2000
A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones Admn 2002
The Divisional Court upheld a condition imposed under section 14 of the 1986 Act which prescribed permitted entrance and exit points for an assembly. . .
Cited – Austin and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
The claimants had variously been attending a demonstration in London, or passing through. The police detained them in a cordon for several hours. They sought damages. No unlawful acts were alleged against them.
Held: There was no deprivation . .
Cited – Brehony, Regina (on the Application Of) v Greater Manchester Police Admn 23-Mar-2005
The claimant challenged a condition imposed by the chief officer of police under section 14(2)(b) prohibiting his group from holding an assembly at a particular location.
One ground of challenge was a failure to give adequate reasons, as to . .
Cited – Moos and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of the Police of The Metropolis Admn 14-Apr-2011
The claimants, demonstrators at the G20 summit, complained of the police policy of kettling, the containment of a crowd over a period of time, not because they were expected to to behave unlawfully, but to ensure a separation from those who were. . .
Cited – Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Jan-2013
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster . .
Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .

Cited by:
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.643844

Associated Newspapers Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson: Admn 20 Jan 2012

The defendant was conducting a public enquiry into the culture, ethics and practices of national newspapers. The claimant and others objected to the admission of anonymous evidence from journalists afraid of career blight. The claimants complained of the lack of fairness, lack of openness and breach of Convention rights.
Held: The request for judicial review was refused. The starting point for considering the Chairman’s duty of fairness was the task which he was appointed to perform under his terms of reference. The Inquiry had already received evidence as to the threat of career blight, and was entitled to give credence to the threat, and the Inquiry needed to be seen to be thorough and balanced, and the judge had ‘reached a decision on a point of general principle, and he has kept open more detailed scrutiny of individual cases.’

Toulson LJ, Sweeney, Sharp JJ
[2012] EWHC 57 (Admin)
Bailii
Inquiries Act 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm) ChD 1978
A solicitor had failed to register an option as a land charge over property. The court was asked what steps should have been taken by a solicitor in the conduct of a claim: ‘Mr Harman [leading counsel for the plaintiff] sought to rely upon the fact . .
Cited – Regina v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Guinness Plc CA 1989
The court asked about the standard of decision making at which a court could intervene: ‘Irrationality, at least in the sense of failing to take account of relevant factors or taking account of irrelevant factors, is a difficult concept in the . .
Cited – In re Officer L HL 31-Jul-2007
Police officers appealed against refusal of orders protecting their anonymity when called to appear before the Robert Hamill Inquiry.
Held: ‘The tribunal accordingly approached the matter properly under article 2 in seeking to ascertain . .
Cited – Bennett v Officers A and B and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 2-Nov-2004
Police Officers had been involved in a shooting in which a man died. They were granted anonymity before the coroner’s court, on evidence suggesting they might be at risk. The family of the deceased appealed.
Held: The coroner misdirected . .
Cited – Regina (A and others) (Widgery Soldiers) v Lord Saville of Newdigate and Others CA 19-Dec-2001
The court would apply common sense in deciding whether soldier witnesses should be obliged to attend in person at an enquiry in Londonderry, where they claimed their lives would be at risk. It was not appropriate to seek to define what would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450434

Regina v Portsmouth City Council ex parte Coles and Colwick Builders Limited and ex parte George Austin Limited: CA 8 Nov 1996

A tender was issued inviting applications for public works contracts but was wrong for failing to set out the criteria which would be used to assess the award, but the process stood nevertheless.

Times 13-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 913
England and Wales

Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.140780

Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office: Admn 28 Jul 2021

Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory

The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the requirements, but disagreed as to the need for continued review, the defendant saying that the review was now academic.
Held: The first two broadcasts had been discriminatory, and damages should be assessed but the county court. The discrimination was not continuing.

Fordham J
[2021] EWHC 2108 (Admin)
Bailii
Equality Act 201
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport Admn 2019
Live streaming of video and audio from a court room is prohibited. . .
Cited – Finch, Regina (on The Application of) v Surrey County Council QBD 3-Feb-2021
Penalty against BBC for recording and broadcasting extract from court hearing . .
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v Allen CA 20-Nov-2009
The claimant had complained that as a wheelchair user, the bank had failed to provide wheelchair access to its facilities in Sheffield or any satisfactory alternative. . .
Cited – Bridges, Regina (on The Application of) v South Wales Police CA 11-Aug-2020
. .
Cited – Adiatu and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Her Majesty’S Treasury Admn 15-Jun-2020
The claim challenges certain decisions made by the Treasury in relation to the availability of support by way of Statutory Sick Pay (‘SSP’) and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (‘JRS’). . .
Cited – Detention Action and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 25-Mar-2020
Application for interim relief in an application for judicial review which challenges ‘the on-going detention of all immigration detainees, in particular those with pre-existing conditions which increase vulnerability to COVID-19 . . [and] . . the . .
Cited – Finnigan v Northumbria Police CA 8-Oct-2013
Officers had searched the claimant’s house on three occasions. Though it was known that he was profoundly deaf, no signer had been brought along to assist. The judge had held that on two occasions communication had been effective, and on the third, . .
Cited – VC, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 2-Feb-2018
‘There are broadly two questions before the court in this appeal. The first concerns the application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s policy governing the detention under the Immigration Act 1971 (‘the 1971 Act’) of persons who . .
Cited – Dolan 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 . .
Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon Admn 26-Mar-2021
Conditions for Anonymity Orders
The claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to provide suitable accommodation under its duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act. The Defendant admitted breach of its statutory duty because the accommodation that it was providing . .
Cited – Roads v Central Trains Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The court considered the meaning of the ‘duty to provide a reasonable alternative method’.
Held: The policy of the 1995 Act was to provide access to a service as close as it was reasonable possible to get to the standard offered to the public . .
Cited – Firstgroup Plc v Paulley SC 18-Jan-2017
The claimant wheelchair user alleged discrimination by the bus company. The space reserved for wheelchair users on a bus had been wrongly occupied by a passenger who refused to vacate the space. The claimant said that the bus driver should have . .
Cited – Fayad, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 31-Jan-2018
. .
Cited – Ishola v Transport for London CA 7-Feb-2020
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Elias CA 10-Oct-2006
The claimant said that a scheme drawn by the defendant for compensating British civilians interned by the Japanese during the second world war was indirectly discriminatory on racial grounds by requiring a national origin link with the UK. She had . .
Cited – Durand Education Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Education CA 8-Dec-2020
A PSED breach can vitiate an impugned decision or action (‘outcome’), subject to principles of materiality and the statutory test of ‘highly likely: not substantially different’ . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Cited – SXC, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another Admn 23-Oct-2019
. .
Cited – Powell v Dacorum Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2019
Appeal from refusal of appeal from housing possession order. . .
Cited – Bracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 6-Nov-2013
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.666459

AB, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another: Admn 4 Sep 2009

The claimant was serving a sentence of imprisonment. She was a pre-operative transgender woman, but held in a male prison. She sought review of a decision to refuse transfer to a women’s prison. The Gender Recognition Panel was satisfied that the Claimant had lived in her acquired gender for the requisite two year period prior to her application for a gender recognition certificate. While she was detained in the male prison estate, the Gender Identity Clinic treating her would not approve her gender reassignment surgery, requiring a period living ‘in role’ as a woman within a female prison.
Held: ‘When issues so close to the identity of a prisoner as here, so intimately concerned with her personal autonomy, the deployment of resources as a justification for the infringement of such rights must be clear and weighty in order to be proportionate. Here they are neither.’ The decision did infringe the claimant’s human rights. The decision also failed under judicial review, the respondent having failed properly to take account of all the evidence and not recognising that his decision would prevent the claimant getting the surgery required.

Elvin QC J
[2009] EWHC 2220 (Admin), [2009] HRLR 35, [2010] 2 All ER 151, (2010) 11 BMLR 70
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Gender Recognition Act 2004 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Raymond v Honey HL 4-Mar-1981
The defendant prison governor had intercepted a prisoner’s letter to the Crown Office for the purpose of raising proceedings to have the governor committed for an alleged contempt of court.
Held: The governor was in contempt of court. Subject . .
Cited – Dickson and Another v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2007
(Grand Chamber) The complainants were husband and wife. They had been married whilst the husband served a sentence of life imprisonment. They had been refused suport for artificial insemination treatment.
Held: The claim succeeded. The refusal . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Bellinger v Bellinger HL 10-Apr-2003
Transgendered Male/Female not to marry as Female
The parties had gone through a form of marriage, but Mrs B had previously undergone gender re-assignment surgery. Section 11(c) of the 1973 Act required a marriage to be between a male and a female. It was argued that the section was incompatible . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 21-May-2009
The appellant had been ostentatiously photographed by the police as he left a company general meeting. He was a peaceful and lawful objector to the Arms Trade. He appealed against refusal of an order for the records to be destroyed. The police had . .
Cited – L v Lithuania ECHR 11-Sep-2007
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.374737

M v Home Office and Another; In re M: HL 27 Jul 1993

A Zairian sought asylum, but his application, and an application for judicial review were rejected. He was notified that he was to be returned to Zaire, but then issued new proceedings for judicial review. The judge said that his removal should be delayed, and accepted an undertaking from counsel to the Crown that he would not be removed. He was removed in breach of the undertaking, which counsel then did not accept he had given. The judge ordered the return of M to this country. The respondent said the court had no power either of mandamus or in contempt against the Crown.
Held: A court can grant a final and or an interim injunction against the Crown, and the Crown and ministers of the Crown, are not immune to contempt proceedings for breach of an injunction.
Section 21 of the 1947 Act did not prevent an injunction being granted in a situation in which it could have been granted prior to the Act and section 31(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 gave jurisdiction to the court on applications for judicial review to grant injunctions, including interim injunctions, against ministers and other officers of the Crown. The effect of the 1947 Act was that it is only in those situations where prior to the Act no injunctive relief could be obtained that section 21 prevents an injunction being granted. This was the least that could be expected from legislation intended to make it easier for proceedings to be brought against the Crown.
Lord Templeman said: ‘My Lords, the argument that there is no power to enforce the law by injunction or contempt proceedings against a minister in his official capacity would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Woolf, and on principle, I am satisfied that injunctions and contempt proceedings may be brought against the minister in his official capacity and that in the present case the Home Office for which the Secretary of State was responsible was in contempt.’
Lord Templeman criticised ‘the proposition that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity [as] a proposition which would reverse the result of the Civil War’. The proposition that a member of the executive can actually overrule a decision of the judiciary because he does not agree with that decision is equally remarkable, even if one allows for the fact that the executive’s overruling can be judicially reviewed. Indeed, the notion of judicial review in such circumstances is a little quaint, as it can be said with some force that the rule of law would require a judge, almost as a matter of course, to quash the executive decision.

Lord Woolf, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Times 28-Jul-1993, Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Independent 28-Jul-1993, [1994] 1 AC 377, [1993] UKHL 5, [1993] 3 WLR 43, [1993] 3 All ER 537
Bailii
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 21, Supreme Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Merricks v Heathcote-Amery 1955
. .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd HL 18-May-1989
The applicants were companies owned largely by Spanish nationals operating fishing vessels within UK waters. The 1988 Act required them to re-register the vessels as British fishing vessels. The sought suspension of enforcement pending a reference . .

Cited by:
Cited – McDonald v Secretary of State for Scotland ScSf 1994
The pursuer was a serving prisoner. He said he had been repeatedly searched without lawful authority, warrant or justifiable cause. He raised an action of reparation in the sheriff court in which he sought damages from the Secretary of State for . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Jul-2004
The claimant had sought damages for the conditions in which he had been held in prison in Scotland. He later discovered that one of the judges had acted as Lord Advocate representing as to the ability of the new Scottish Parliamentary system to . .
Cited – McDonald v Secretary of State for Scotland IHCS 2-Feb-1994
The pursuer, a prisoner, complained that he had been subject to repeated searches which he claimed were illegal. He sought damages and an injunction.
Held: The action which the pursuer had raised was an ordinary action in the sheriff court was . .
Cited – Petition of Andrew Scott and Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue Their Detention In Inhumane Prison Conditions SCS 26-Oct-2001
Each applicant sought an interim order against the Scottish Minister with respect to their treatment in prison. It had been found that the conditions in Barlinnie Prison were inhumane. The Crown responded that the court had no jurisdiction to make . .
Cited – Reclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C SCS 18-Dec-2001
A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Cited – Beggs v Scottish Ministers HL 7-Feb-2007
The claimant, a serving prisoner, had sought to sue the prison authorities for the conditions in which he was kept. He complained that his correspondence with his lawyers had been unlwafully opened by the prison. Repeatedly, undertakings were given . .
Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Cited – Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Contempt of Court, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.83259

Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 29 Aug 2014

The respondent had carried out the first round of a badger cull, subject to supervision and reporting by an independent expert panel. Promoises were made, the claimant said, that the panel’s role would be maintained for any subsequent round. The panel’s report was critical. The Trust now sought judicial review of a decision that a second round would be without such review, claiming breach of a legitimate expectation.
Held: The request was rejected. Any promise of the contiued involvement of the expert panel was not clear enough to found a legitimate expectation, and indeed the original olicy envisaged a lesser involvement than had occurred, and a promise involvement of the sort asserted would be an improper removal of control of policy making from the executive. The Independent Expert Panel itself had originally only envisaged involvement to the extent already completed.

Kenneth Parker J
[2014] EWHC 2909 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Cited – The Association of British Civilian Internees – Far Eastern Region (ABCIFER) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 3-Apr-2003
The association sought a judicial review of a decision not to pay compensation in respect of their or their parents or grandparents’ internment by the Japanese in the Second World War. Payment was not made because those interned were not born in . .
Cited – Paponette and Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 13-Dec-2010
The appellants operated taxis in Port-of-Spain. The Minister proposed changes, but when challenged provided re-assurances. After the changes, the re-assurances were not satisfied. The claimants sought judicial review asserting that a legitimate . .
Cited – Patel, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council CA 27-Mar-2013
The claimant had qualified as a doctor in St Kitts and Nevis. He appealed against refusal of his challenge to the decision of the respondent not to recognise his qualification. He relied upon a statement upon which he had relied.
Held: Whether . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan and Secretary of State for Health Intervenor and Royal College of Nursing Intervenor CA 16-Jul-1999
Consultation to be Early and Real Listening
The claimant was severely disabled as a result of a road traffic accident. She and others were placed in an NHS home for long term disabled people and assured that this would be their home for life. Then the health authority decided that they were . .
Cited – Bhatt Murphy (a firm), Regina (on the application of) v The Independent Assessor CA 9-Jul-2008
The appellants each challenged alterations to the scheme for compensation of the victims of miscarriages of justice.
Held: Laws LJ emphasised the special nature of the promise or practice which was necessary to give rise to a substantive . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Administrative, Judicial Review, News

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536295

Regina 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 which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to be pursued at trial, and not by this form of challenge. The degree of deference to, and/or of recognition of the special competence of, the decision-maker is less and, correspondingly, the intensity of the Court’s review is greater – perhaps greatest in an Article 2 case – than for those human rights where the Convention requires a balance to be struck. In considering where the balance lies it may be useful to consider the following questions: (1) what does the prosecution have to prove in order to transfer the onus to the defence? (2) what is the burden on the accused – does it relate to something which is likely to be difficult for him to prove, or does it relate to something which is likely to be within his knowledge or (I would add) to which he readily has access (3) what is the nature of the threat faced by society which the provision is designed to combat?

Lord Hope, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Times 02-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [1999] UKHL 43, [2000] 2 AC 326, [1999] 3 WLR 972, [2000] Crim LR 486, [1999] 4 All ER 801, [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275, (1999) 11 Admin LR 1026, (2000) 2 LGLR 697, [2000] HRLR 93, [2000] UKHRR 176
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 19(1)(aa), European Convention on Human Rights 2, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene etc Admn 30-Mar-1999
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act.
Held: The Act . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .

Cited by:
Cited – Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Dec-2000
The irrebuttable presumption contained in the Act that the level of alcohol contained in the accused’s blood at the time when he was stopped was no less than the level measured later that the police station, was not incompatible with the defendant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
Cited – Davies v Health and Safety Executive CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one.
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Bloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Jun-2003
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection . .
Cited – Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
Cited – Norwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
Cited – Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Nov-2001
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
Cited – Samaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 11-May-2004
The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a . .
Cited – Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Cited – Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – A, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 25-Jun-2001
The applicant, who feared for his life if identified, sought the release to him of materials discovered by the police in searching premises associated with a loyalist paramiliitary group. He thought that they might include information sourced form . .
Cited – Price and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Cited – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Bermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
Cited – Regina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Cited – Ofulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Cited – Regina v G; Regina v J HL 4-Mar-2009
G was to stand trial for possession of articles useful for terrorism. Whilst in prison, he collected and created diagrams and information and prepared plans to bomb a local army centre. When arrested he said he had done so to upset the prison . .
Cited – E and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
Cited – AXA 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 . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Cited – Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.159025

Hasan, 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 public authorities are obliged at common law to publish reasons for administrative decisions whenever in all the circumstances the court is satisfied that the public interest so requires.
Held: The appeal failed. There was no public law duty of the sort asserted by the claimant. In the absence of some particular duty, there was no general duty to give reasons.
As to the Freedom of Information application, the 2000 Act may properly be seen as Parliament’s considered statutory framework for the disclosure of information held by public authorities, whose enactment militates against the incremental judicial perception of a common law duty to the same or any wider extent. Second, the fact that the complainant failed before the Information Commissioner goes nowhere to suggest that he or others ought to be enabled to succeed by other means. He failed because his application was outside the framework for disclosure enacted by Parliament.

[2008] EWCA Civ 1311
Bailii
Export Control Act 2002, Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003, Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 19-Nov-2007
The claimant, a Palestinian, sought to challenge licences authorising the sale of military equipment to Israel which had been used in turn to destroy his farm, and infringe his human rights.
Held: Permission was refused. Though overt . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Hinds 1995
. .
Cited – Regina v Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, ex parte Matson CA 18-Aug-1995
The court considered the need to give reasons for the election of Aldermen. . .
Cited – Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
Cited – Wooder, Regina (on the Application of) v Feggetter and Dr Grah CA 25-Apr-2002
The patient challenged the treatment given to him against his will as a detained mental patient. He said the opinion of the second doctor as required under the Act, had not been put into writing.
Held: Following Wilkinson, which allowed a . .
Cited – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Grillo CA 13-Jun-1995
There was no general onus on Local Authorities to give reasons for their decisions in the absence of any explicit or particular duty. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, International, Information

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278248

Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: Admn 18 Feb 2021

Failure to Publish Contracts awards details

Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under emergency conditions and provisions, but there remained a requirement that the details of the contract be published, and that had not happened as was required.
There was no evidence that the breaches of the Regulations had been systematic as alleged, but equally the respondent had been prompted by the action to bring forward publication of the details of contracts as they became available.
Courts should be cautious before adding to judicial review challenges, additional parties with no direct standing and serving only to add perhaps political standing.

Mr Justice Chamberlain
[2021] EWHC 346 (Admin), [2021] WLR(D) 117
Bailii, Judiciary, WLRD
Public Contracts Regulations 2015
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina on the Application of Kathro and Others and Llantwit Fardre Community Council v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council Admn 6-Jul-2001
Local residents sought to challenge the proposed determination of a planning application which involved a private finance initiative. One of the grounds was that the use of a negotiated tendering procedure for the purposes of the PFI was contrary to . .
Cited – Wylde and Others v Waverley Borough Council Admn 9-Mar-2017
The claimants challenged the procurement methods of the respondent in acquiring land to support a development. The Court considered their standing to bring such proceedings.
Held: Arden LJ’s observations in Chandler (and Richards J’s in . .
Cited – Gottlieb, Regina (on The Application of) v Winchester City Council Admn 11-Feb-2015
The Claimant applied for judicial review of the decision of Winchester City Council to authorise variations to a contract with a developer to build a new mixed retail, residential and transport centre in the heart of Winchester city centre. As a . .
Cited – Cookson and Clegg Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Ministry of Defence and Another CA 22-Apr-2005
Renewed application for leave to appeal granted.
Held: For an economic operator, if a claim under the Public Contracts Regulations may be brought, a claim for judicial review may not . .
Cited – Chandler, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families CA 9-Oct-2009
The claimant challenged the scheme set out for procurement when making arrangements with a sponsor for establishing a school as an Academy school. . The main ground of challenge was that the procurement did not comply with the Public Contracts . .
Cited – Stanley International Betting And Stanleybet Malta v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze ECJ 22-Jan-2015
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Betting and gambling – National rules – Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence . .
Cited – Unison, Regina (on The Application of) and Another v NHS Shared Business Services Ltd and Another Admn 15-Mar-2012
The claimant trades union sought to challenge the respondent’s decision to outsource various services, saying they had been in breach of the 2006 Regulations. The respondents said that the Regulations did not apply.
Held: There may be . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg Admn 30-Jul-1993
The applicant, a former editor of the Times, sought judicial review of the decision by the respondent to ratify the EU Treaty (Maastricht), saying that it would increase the powers of the European Parliament without it having been approved by . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Cited – McCourt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board for England and Wales and Others Admn 1-Sep-2020
The mother of a murder victim sought to challenge the release of her murderer on parole. The court considered her standing to seek review, saying: ‘In defining the standing requirement, Parliament chose a deliberately open-textured phrase: an . .
Cited – Regina v Loveridge, Regina v Lee; Regina v Loveridge CACD 11-Apr-2001
The police took secret videos of defendants whilst in the cells at the local Magistrates Court. The prosecution later sought to use the videos in identifying the defendants as participants in another crime. The filming was both unlawful under the . .
Cited – Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport Admn 2019
Live streaming of video and audio from a court room is prohibited. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.658885

Smoke Club Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: Admn 29 Oct 2013

The claimant had been refused leave to bring judicial review. It then renewed its application before finally wthdrawing it. The court now considered liability for costs.
Held: ‘There are particular reasons for the particular rules governing costs at the paper and oral permission stage in judicial review, which are reflected in the decision and principles in Mount Cook. It would be extremely odd if a claimant could save himself the costs liability by proceeding further with judicial review proceedings so that he failed at the oral renewal stage and did not have to pay the costs of the successful defendant, but was liable to pay the costs that might have been incurred after the acknowledgment of service if he served a notice of discontinuance. ‘

Ouseley J
[2013] EWHC 3830 (Admin), [2014] 2 Costs LO 123
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 38.6
England and Wales
Citing:
Preferred – Mount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Cited – Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council CA 15-Nov-2007
The court was asked whether, as a matter of law or of practice, an order for costs made in favour of a successful respondent to judicial review proceedings includes costs incurred prior to the grant of permission unless these are expressly excluded. . .
Cited – Ayr Harbour Trustees v Oswald 1883
The appellant trustees could not competently preclude themselves from exercising their powers under the Ayr Harbour Act in respect of certain land acquired by them for the purposes of that statute bearing in mind that their discretionary powers were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.536022

Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 14 Dec 2018

Deception as to identity did not undermine consent

The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case law suggested that no prosecution had ever been undertaken where the deception said to undermine the consent was no closely related to the sexual act itself.
Lord Burnett CJ said: ‘the CPS lawyer was entitled to conclude that the actus reus of the offence would not, on balance, be established, but she also concluded that there were considerable difficulties in proving mens rea. In her opinion a jury would find it difficult to accept that the interested party intended to procure at least one act of sexual intercourse (and for these purposes, it would surely have to be the first act) at the relevant time: i.e. shortly before it took place. Plainly, the requisite intention could only be proved by inference, and at paragraph 56 of her decision the CPS lawyer provided a good example of a case where the inference could safely be drawn: the making of false promises of marriage to procure sex. Overall, the CPS lawyer was entitled to form the evaluative judgement that a jury would be unlikely to draw the necessary inference on these facts. This is precisely the sort of assessment upon which this Court applies a strict self-denying ordinance.’

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Jay J
[2018] EWHC 3508 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 765, [2019] Crim LR 532, [2019] 1 Cr App R 28, [2019] 2 WLR 722, [2019] QB 1019
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 1, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 142, Sexual Offences Act 2003 1 74 75 76
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Clarence CCCR 20-Nov-1888
The defendant knew that he had gonorrhea. He had intercourse with his wife, and infected her. She would not have consented had she known. He appealed his convictions for assault and causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: ‘The question in this . .
Cited – Olugboja, Regina v CACD 17-Jun-1981
The actus reus of the offence of rape was an act of sexual intercourse to which the complainant did not consent at the time it occurred. . .
Cited – Elbekkay, Regina v CACD 12-Sep-1994
The defendant appealed against his conviction for rape. The victim had mistaken him man for her ‘boyfriend’
Held: it was rape for a man to have intercourse with a woman by impersonating her boyfriend with whom she had been living for 18 . .
Cited – Regina v Linekar CACD 21-Oct-1994
L appealed against his conviction for rape. His victim was a woman working as a prostitute. He said that he had simply made off afterwards without payment. He was convicted on the basis that he had procured the act by a false pretence by him that he . .
Cited – Regina v Richardson CACD 6-Apr-1998
The question was whether a dentist whose right to practice had been suspended was guilty of assault because the apparent consent of a number of patients was vitiated by mistake about her status as a dentist. The dentist had failed to disclose that . .
Cited – Lang and Others, Regina v CACD 3-Nov-2005
In each case the defendant had commited violent or sexual offences and were caught by the new mandatory sentencing provisions, and been made subject to life imprisonment, or detention for public protection, or an extended sentence.
Held: The . .
Cited – Regina v Dee 1884
Court of the Crown Cases Reserved of Ireland – May CJ (who had also been the trial judge), set out the facts: ‘There is not, I think, any doubt or dispute as to the facts and circumstances of the case. Upon the report of the Judge, who was myself, . .
Cited – Jheeta, Regina v CACD 11-Jul-2007
The victim complied with the defendant’s instructions, given in text messages where he was posing as a police officer, to the effect that she should have sexual intercourse with him. These offences were committed either side of the coming into force . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
Cited – Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn 2-Nov-2011
The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .
Cited – L v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Admn 12-Mar-2013
Renewed applications for judicial review in each of which the claimants challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute.
The principle of the separation of powers leads to the adoption of a ‘very strict self-denying . .
Cited – F, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 24-Apr-2013
Application for judicial review of the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the claimant by her former partner. The claimant said that she had initially consented to sex with her . .
Cited – McNally v Regina CACD 27-Jun-2013
A teenage woman impersonated a teenage man and secured the consent of another young woman on that basis to engage in digital penetrative activity.
Held: A victim’s consent to a sexual penetration might be destroyed by a defendant’s deception . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) CACD 7-Apr-2004
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died.
Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The . .
Cited – In Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .
Cited – DSD and NBV and Others Regina (on The Application of) v Admn 28-Mar-2018
Challenge to decision of parole board for release of notorious criminal. – Whether Parole Board should take account of allegations made but neither prosecuted nor admitted. Whether Parole Board hearings were public.
Held: Granted . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lawrance, Regina v CACD 23-Jul-2020
Consent not removed by Lie as to Vasectomy
The defendant appealed from his conviction of rape. He had represented to his victim that he had had a vasectomy to secure consent which the court found had been vitiated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Could a lie about fertility negate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.632099

Regina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd: CA 30 Sep 1993

A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay.
Held: The appeal failed. The variation of the terms for nuclear waste site testing was lawful. A responsible body with a bona fide concern about the subject matter of the proceedings may be regarded as being more than a mere ‘busy body.’
Glidewell LJ said that where a stay might operate to the detriment of third parties who are not before the court, the court should apply the principles ordinarily applicable to a claim for an interim injunction and consider whether, on the balance of convenience, the grant of a stay is justified. He also said: ‘At the hearing before Brooke J no offer was made by Greenpeace to give an undertaking as to damages suffered by BNFL should they suffer any; the sort of undertaking that would normally be required if an interlocutory injunction were to be granted. I bear in mind that the judge said that he was influenced by the evidence about Greenpeace’s likely inability to pay for that financial loss, but he had earlier remarked that he had not been offered an undertaking. If we were dealing with this matter purely on the material which was before the judge, I would find no difficulty at all. This was essentially a matter for the discretion of the judge.’
Scott LJ said: ‘But if the purpose of the interlocutory stay is, as here, to prevent executive action by a third party in pursuance of rights which have been granted by the decision under attack, then, in my judgment, to require a cross-undertaking in damages to be given is, as a matter of discretion, an entirely permissible condition for the grant of interlocutory relief and in general, I would think, unless some special feature be present, a condition that should be expected to be imposed.’

Glidewell, Scott, Evans LLJ
Independent 30-Sep-1993, [1994] 4 All ER 329, [1993] EWCA Civ 9, [1994] ELR 76, [1994] 1 WLR 570
Bailii
Radioactive Substances Act 1960
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Cala 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 . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.86866

Roy 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 by way of public law action through a judicial review.
Held: The fact that the defendant’s decision was a public law act did not prevent the plaintiff pursuing his rights in private law and that could be by way of ordinary action. The plaintiff had a relationship with the committee which established private law rights. The rule of procedural exclusivity does not apply where a defendant in a civil case simply seeks to defend himself by questioning the validity of a public law decision.

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Emslie, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Lowry
Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] 1 AC 624, [1992] 7 CL 474, [1992] 2 WLR 239, [1991] UKHL 8, [1992] IRLR 233, (1992) 4 Admin LR 649, [1992] 3 Med LR 177, [1992] 1 All ER 705
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Davy v Spelthorne Borough Council HL 13-Oct-1983
Although section 243(1)(a) provides that the ‘validity’ of an enforcement notice is not to be questioned except as therein provided, the word ‘validity’ is evidently not intended to be understood in its strict sense. It is used to mean merely . .
Cited – Wandsworth 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 . .
Cited – O’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:
Cited – Boddington 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 . .
Applied – Lonrho plc v Tebbit CA 1992
The company became involved in a takeover bid. It was referred to the Monopolies Commision, and the buyer undertook not to increase his shareholding pending the report. In the meantime another buyer acquired a majority shareholding. The buyer had . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Ruddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Health Professions

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.88883

Imbeah, Regina (on The Application of) v Willesden Magistrates’ Court and Another: QBD 14 Jul 2016

The claimant applied for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrates Court to convict her of driving with excess alcohol. The grounds were that the district judge acted unlawfully in proceeding with the trial without disclosure by the prosecution of CCTV film of the custody suite. The court had refused permission to proceed with this claim after consideration of the papers and recorded it as being totally without merit. CPR 54.12(7) provides that in these circumstances the claimant may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. The claimant nevertheless issued an application asking the court to order an oral hearing to reconsider its decision, alternatively to consider whether the court has jurisdiction to make such an order.
The claimant’s application raised two issues:
i) Is it arguable that the court has jurisdiction to permit its decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing, notwithstanding the terms of CPR 54.12(7); and
ii) Was the claim totally without merit?
Held: Though it was a proper application, the answers to the questions raised were, respectively, ‘no’ and ‘yes’ and that the application should was refused. The decisions of the district judge to refuse an adjournment and to refuse to order disclosure of the custody suite CCTV were unassailable.
The court had been wrong to refuse leave for the reason that an alternative avenue of appeal was available. The court should have addressed the substance of the claim. Addressing that material, it was however clear from the material which was before the court when the order was made that the claim was indeed bound to fail.

Leggatt J
[2016] EWHC 1760 (Admin)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 18(1)(a), Civil Procedure Rules 52.15(1A)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Grace, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Jun-2014
What is ‘totally without merit’?
The claimant had sought judicial review. Her case had been certified as being ‘totally without merit’, thus denying to her any opportunity to renew her application for leave at an oral hearing, leaving only recourse to a judge of the Court of Appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Petrie Admn 21-Jan-2015
The Director appealed against discharge of their prosecution for abuse of process. On the date fixed for the trial of the Respondent on a charge of driving with excess alcohol in his breath, it was common ground that CCTV footage from the police . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567035

Padfield 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 compared with prices paid to producers in other regions. The Minister refused to appoint a committee.
Held: The Minister was under a duty to give proper consideration to the question whether to refer the complaint, and any such decision had to be based on good reasons, and consistent with the statutory purpose. The Minister had a discretion so that the real question was how far it was subject to judicial control.
Having summarised the four conventional heads under which the exercise of such a discretion may be attacked, Lord Upjohn said: ‘In practice they merge into one another and ultimately it becomes a question whether for one reason or another the Minister has acted unlawfully in the sense of misdirecting himself in law, that is, not merely in respect of some point of law but by failing to observe the other headings I have mentioned. In the circumstances of this case, which I have sufficiently detailed for this purpose, it seems to me quite clear that prima facie there seems a case for investigation by the committee of investigation. As I have said already, it seems just the type of situation for which the machinery of section 19 was set up, but that is a matter for the Minister. He may have good reasons for refusing an investigation, he may have, indeed, good policy reasons for refusing it . . So I must examine the reasons given by the Minister, including any policy on which they may be based, to see whether he has acted unlawfully and thereby overstepped the true limits of his discretion, or as it is frequently said in the prerogative writ cases, exceeded his jurisdiction. Unless he has done so, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere.’ Lord Upjohn then proceeded to consider the Minister’s various reasons individually and in detail.

Lord Upjohn, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Pearce
[1968] AC 997, [1968] UKHL 1, [1968] 1 All ER 694, [1968] 2 WLR 924
Bailii
Agricultural Marketing Act 1958
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford and Another HL 23-Mar-1880
A statute enacted that with regard to certain charges against any Clerk in Holy Orders it ‘shall be lawful’ for the Bishop of the diocese ‘on the application of any party complaining thereof’ to issue a commission for enquiry.
Held: The words . .
Cited – The King v Mitchell 1913
The court considered the meaning of section 9 of the 1875 Act which read: ‘Where a person is accused before a Court of summary jurisdiction of any offence made punishable by this Act, and for which a penalty amounting to twenty pounds, or . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gillan and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis and Another Admn 31-Oct-2003
The applicants challenged by way of judicial review the way they had been stopped and searched under the Act. They attended a demonstration. The search revealed nothing suspicious. General authorisations for such searches had been issued under the . .
Cited – Office 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Limited CA 30-Oct-2002
Order confirmed. ‘while for my part I have found nothing to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State, the history of this case has demonstrated to my mind that the approach taken to the public decisions that had to be made fell . .
Cited – Regina v Braintree District Council ex parte Halls Admn 2-Jul-1999
Where a local authority had sold a property to a tenant, and the tenant later came back to request the release from one of the covenants given on the sale, the council was free to charge an appropriate sum for that release. It was not a covenant . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Fisher v English Nature CA 27-May-2004
The claimants appealed a refusal of their request for a judicial review of a decision of the respondent to designate their land as being of special scientific interest because of the need to protect the stone curlew.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Spink, Regina (on the Application Of) v Wandsworth Borough Council Admn 20-Oct-2004
Parents requested the local authority to make provision for their severely disabled children. The local authority wished when deciding whether to provide adaptations of the house to make allowance for the parents’ financial resources.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Cited – In re Shields HL 6-Feb-2003
(Northern Ireland) The chief constable appealed against a decision that the directions he had given, that officers with poor attendance records for sickness should not be considered for promotion.
Held: The Chief Constable had, following the . .
Cited – The British Beer and Pub Association and others v Canterbury City Council Admn 24-Jun-2005
The council had required of applicants for liquor licenses more detailed information than was required by the statute. The Association challenged their policy.
Held: One aim of the legislation is to allow licensing authorities to provide a . .
Cited – Langley and others v Liverpool City Council and others CA 11-Oct-2005
Families had challenged the removal of their children into the care of foster parents by the respondents. The family father, who was blind, had taken to driving. The respondents appealed findings that they had acted unlawfully and in breach of the . .
Cited – M, Regina (on the Application of) v Gateshead Council CA 14-Mar-2006
The applicant had left care, but still received assistance. She was arrested and the police asked the attending social worker to arrange secure accommodation overnight. The respondent refused. The court was asked what duty (if any) is owed by local . .
Cited – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Walker; Same v James CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant had been sentenced to a short period of imprisonment but with an indeterminate term until he demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public. He complained that the term having expired, no opportunity had . .
Cited – Electoral Commission, Regina (On the Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 19-Oct-2009
The UKIP party had accepted substantial donations. The donor had, through, he said, inadvertent error, had failed to ensure that he appeared on the electoral roll. The party had not taken all reasonable steps to verify his registration as required. . .
Cited – Onesearch Direct Holdings Ltd (T/A Onesearch Direct) v City of York Council Admn 19-Mar-2010
The court considered the conditions under which the respondent authority replied to all enquiries as to properties within its area. The replies were given by a standardised all inclusive information sheet derived from a central database. The . .
Applied – The Law Society of England and Wales, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor Admn 15-Jun-2010
Costs restriction not made under Act
The respondent had introduced rules which restricted the levels of costs which might be awarded from central funds to a successful defendant in a criminal trial who had take private representation. The amendment was made under powers in the 1985 . .
Cited – The Electoral Commission, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another SC 29-Jul-2010
UKIP, a political party had accepted donations from an individual who had ceased to be a registered voter. An application had been made for forfeiture of the sums given. The court was now asked whether the Act created a presumption in favour of . .
Cited – Cala 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 . .
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 9-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent to take over and discontinue his private prosecutions arising from public order incidents, saying that the respondent’s policy was unlawful in restricting such prosecutions.
Cited – Lumba (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 . .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Applied – Regina v Braintree District Council, ex parte Malcolm William Halls CA 1-Mar-2000
When selling a house to its tenant under the right to buy legislation, the council had imposed a restrictive covenant preventing the new owner developing the land by further building. The purchaser later approached the council for its release so as . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Cited – Gujra, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service SC 14-Nov-2012
The appellant had twice begun private prosecutions only to have them taken over by the CPS and discontinued. He complained that a change in their policy on such interventions interfered with his statutory and constitutional right to bring such a . .
Cited – RM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .
Cited – Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 24-Jul-2013
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental . .
Cited – McEldowney v Forde HL 18-Jun-1969
The House was asked whether the Magistrates had properly dismissed a charge of membership of an unlawful organisation, namely a Republican club. The Magistrates had found that an unlawful club would only be such if it supported the absorption of . .
Cited – Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 16-Nov-2016
The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious . .
Cited – Gallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
No Administrative Duty of Equal Treatment
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. The respondent had entered negotiations with several parties . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Administrative, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.187347

Stojak, 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 the case brought by way of judicial review was brought out of time.
Held: The authority had sought out people to whom such support should have been given but had failed to find the deceased. However the claimant had initially failed to pursue the matter by way of judicial review, wrongly awaiting the outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman’s report, and time to claim should not be extended.

Grenfell S P
[2009] EWHC 3412 (Admin)
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 117
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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. . .
Mentioned – Regina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex Parte Armstrong etc Admn 15-Oct-1999
. .
Cited – Regina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc HL 25-Jul-2002
The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Health, Judicial Review

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.384461

Spahiu and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Judicial Review – Amendment – Principles (IJR): UTIAC 25 Apr 2016

UTIAC (i) The amendment of a judicial review claim form preceding the lodgement of the Acknowledgement of Service does not require the permission of the Tribunal. Such permission is required in all other instances.
(ii) In deciding whether to exercise its discretionary power to permit amendment, the Tribunal will have regard to the overriding objective, fairness, reasonableness and the public law character of the proceedings. The Tribunal will also be alert to any possible subversion or misuse of its processes.
(iii) Every application to amend should be made formally, in writing, on notice to all other parties and paying the appropriate fee which, with effect from 21 March 2016, is andpound;255.
(iv) Where an amendment is permitted in the course of a hearing the Tribunal may, within its discretion, not require compliance with the aforementioned requirements.
(v) There is a sharp distinction between an application to amend grounds and an application to amend the Respondent’s decision under challenge: R (HM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR – Scope – Evidence) IJR [2015] UKUT 437 (IAC) applied.

[2016] UKUT 230 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.565671

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others: HL 25 Jun 1993

A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, changes over time, and the requirements are flexible and closely conditioned by the legal and administrative context. As regards acting within a statutory scheme. The House rejected the argument that the existence of express statutory rights to a fair hearing in relation to some kinds of decisions affecting prisoners entailed the absence of any such right in relation to all other such decisions.

Lord Mustill said: ‘An essential feature of the context is the statute which creates the discretion, as regards both its language and the shape of the legal and administrative system within which the decision is taken’. Consultation and the right to make representations are basic aspects of procedural fairness in public law.
He set out six principles of fairness in public law decisions: (1) where an Act of Parliament confers an administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances. (2) The standards of fairness are not immutable. They may change with the passage of time, both in the general and in their application to decisions of a particular type. (3) The principles of fairness are not to be applied by rote identically in every situation. What fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision, and this is to be taken into account in all its aspects. (4) An essential feature of the context is the statute which creates the discretion, as regards both its language and the shape of the legal and administrative system within which the decision is taken. (5) Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result; or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both. (6) Since the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against his interests fairness will very often require that he is informed of the gist of the case which he has to answer.’ and
‘The respondents acknowledge that it is not enough for them to persuade the court that some procedure other than the one adopted by the decision maker would be better or more fair. Rather, they must show that the procedure is actually unfair. The court must constantly bear in mind that it is to the decision maker, not the court, that Parliament has entrusted not only the making of the decision but also the choice as to how the decision is made.’
Lord Reed said: ‘As Lord Mustill made clear, what fairness demands is dependent on the context; and an essential feature of the context is the statute under which the decision maker is acting . . The principle of audi alteram partem is . . written into the Act. We do not doubt that it is open to the commissioner to go beyond the procedural steps required by section 49, and in particular, as in the present case, to consider additional submissions by the applicant and to carry out his own investigations. Having regard however to section 49(3) in particular, we consider that if the commissioner proposes to consider additional submissions by the applicant . . he must give the authority notice of any relevant material adverse to their position and invite their comments. Compliance with such an obligation will not impose an ‘unreasonable’ burden on the commissioner, and is liable to improve the quality of his decisions as well as ensuring their fairness. ‘

Lord Mustill, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Lane, Lord Templeman, Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Independent 25-Jun-1993, Times 29-Jun-1993, [1993] 3 All ER 92, [1994] 1 AC 531, [1993] UKHL 8, [1993] 3 WLR 154
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1967 61(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Adopted – Regina v Parole Board and Another ex parte Wilson CA 6-May-1992
It was natural justice to allow a discretionary lifer to see the reports which had been prepared for consideration on his application for release on licence. W had been sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery, and was a discretionary life . .
Cited – Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya PC 2-Apr-1962
A police Inspector had been dismissed on a finding of an offence against discipline. . He complained that he had not been allowed to see the report of the Board of Inquiry which contained prejudicial material and which had been relied upon by the . .
Cited – Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works CA 1943
Ministers May Act through Civil Servants
The plaintiffs owned a factory which was to be requisitioned. They sought a judicial review of the lawfulness of the order making the requisition, saying that the 1939 Regulations had been implemented not by the Minister as required, but by an . .
At CA dicta approved – Doody v Secretary of State for the Home Department CACD 1992
The Court considered the procedure for fixing the period for which prisoners sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment should serve for retribution and deterrence before their sentences could be reviewed. Held Staughton LJ considered the issue of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Taylor) v Same CA 13-Nov-2001
The applicants had been convicted of murder. The Home Secretary had to fix sentence tariffs for their release. They contended that it was a breach of their rights for that tariff to be set by a politician. The distinction was made between offences . .
Cited – Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund CA 6-Feb-2003
The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity . .
Cited – Wright v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 2-May-2003
The defendant appealed his sentence of life imprisonment for assault and attempted rape, with a minimum of twelve years to be served. The trial judge was right in deciding that, because of the risk that the appellant presented to women, a . .
Cited – Sporting Options Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horserace Betting Levy Board Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of the rate of levy set by the respondent, saying that they operated a new kind of system which was treated unfairly.
Held: The procedure followed in settling the levy was unsatisfactory. The claimant would . .
Cited – Lord, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 1-Sep-2003
The claimant was a category A prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He sought the reasons for his categorisation as a Class A prisoner. Unhappy at the disclosure made, he sought information under the 1998 Act. It was argued . .
Applied – Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, Ex Parte Duggan QBD 9-Dec-1993
A High Security prisoner is to know the gist of report and reasons for his categorisation: ‘on the first and subsequent annual reviews, fairness, in my view, requires that the gist of the reports be revealed in order to give the opportunity for . .
Applied – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte McAvoy CA 3-Dec-1997
A prisoner had the right to know the gist (though not the full contents) of reports used in deciding on a review of his security status. (Lord Woolf MR) ‘For my part, I accept that it is desirable, when something has the impact which being placed in . .
Cited – Regina (X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 23-Jan-2004
The claimant, a social worker, had been accused of two offences of indecency with children, but the complainants had failed to identify him. The respondent later disclosed those allegations when called upon to provide an enhanced criminal record . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – Independent Assessor v O’Brien, Hickey, Hickey CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants had been imprisoned for many years before their convictions were quashed. They claimed compensation under the Act. The assessor said that there should be deducted from the award the living expenses they would have incurred if they had . .
Cited – Capenhurst and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 15-Sep-2004
The applicants, representatives of voluntary organisations, challenged decisions of the local authority to withdraw their funding, saying the decision making process had been unfair.
Held: Even if it was not bound to consult, if the authority . .
Cited – Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant . .
Cited – Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office CA 11-Nov-2004
In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Cited – Secretary 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Hindley HL 30-Mar-2000
The prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life tariff for the murders of children, now appealed against the imposition of the whole life tarriff.
Held: The appeal failed. It was possible for a Home Secretary to set a whole life . .
Cited – Roberts v Parole Board HL 7-Jul-2005
Balancing Rights of Prisoner and Society
The appellant had been convicted of the murder of three police officers in 1966. His tariff of thirty years had now long expired. He complained that material put before the Parole Board reviewing has case had not been disclosed to him.
Held: . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had, as a child been subject to detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure, the sentence being imposed before 30 November 2000. She argued that that sentence should be subject to periodic review despite the term had been fixed by the Lord . .
Cited – Dudson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 28-Jul-2005
The defendant had committed a murder when aged 16, and after conviction sentenced to be detailed during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. His tarriff had been set at 18 years, reduced to 16 years after review.
Held: ‘What is at issue is the general . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray QBD 15-Dec-1997
The defendant sought judicial review of his court-martial and of the confirming officers. He said the court should have heard that he committed the offence whist intixicated after taking an anti-malarial drug. The court dd not explain why it had . .
Cited – Regina v Universities Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery QBD 30-Jul-1993
When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical ‘where the decision appears aberrant’. ‘the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right . .
Cited – Hasan, 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 . .
Cited – Bamber, Regina v CACD 14-May-2009
The defendant had been convicted in 1986 of the murder of five members of his adoptive family. The judge had initially recommended a minimum term of 25 years. A later judge had suggested a whole life term. The convictions had been upheld in 2002. . .
Cited – Crest Nicholson Plc v Office of Fair Trading Admn 24-Jul-2009
The company challenged as unfair its treatment by the respondent in imposing fines for anti-competive behaviour. The claimant was successor of the company who had misbehaved, but the claimant no longer operated in the area and had no employees from . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Wales Ex Parte Emery CA 9-Jul-1997
The applicant had sought to have included in the definitive map, a local footpath, and now challenged refusal to include it.
Held: A public right of way may be created by dedication or it may be deemed after actual use by the public over . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
Cited – Save Our Surgery Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts Admn 7-Mar-2013
The claimants sought judicial review of the report prepared by the defendants under which departments providing childrens’ heart surgery at their regional hospital would close. They complained that the consultation had been inadequate and flawed. . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner SC 29-Jul-2013
Commissioner’s Approach not in Breach
In May 2010, a Mr Irvine made requests under the 2002 Act for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council’s pay scales. His . .
Cited – Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 29-Jul-2015
The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods . .
Cited – Adams, Regina v (Northern Ireland) SC 13-May-2020
Secretary of State alone to consider confinement
The appellant had been detained under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) during internment during the troubles in Ireland, and then convicted of attempting to escape and escaping. He now appealed from that conviction saying that the order under which he . .
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Prisons

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.87844

Michalak v The General Medical Council and Others: CA 23 Mar 2016

The court considered the remedies and routes of appeal available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimisation, harassment or detriment in the treatment that they have received from a qualifications body. In particular, it concerns the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear and determine complaints against qualifications bodies under Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010.
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘the words ‘by virtue of an enactment’ in section 120(7) are directed to cases in which specific provision is made in legislation for an appeal, or proceedings in the nature of an appeal, in relation to decisions of a particular body, as, for example, in Khan v General Medical Council [1996] ICR 1032. They are not . . intended to refer to the general right to seek judicial review merely because, since 1981, that happens to have been put on a statutory footing.’

Moore-Bick VP CA, Kitchin LJJ, Ryder LJ SPT
[2016] EWCA Civ 172, [2016] WLR(D) 164, 150 BMLR 90, [2016] IRLR 458, [2016] ICR 628, [2016] Med LR 211
Bailii, WLRD
Equality Act 2010
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – The General Medical Council v Dickson, Haywood, Dr Michalak EAT 25-Nov-2014
The Claimant complained to an Employment Tribunal that she had been discriminated against by the GMC (a qualifications body). The GMC contended that section 120(7) Equality Act precluded jurisdiction, since judicial review afforded an appeal for the . .
See Also – Michalak, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council Admn 22-Jul-2011
Dr M sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to continue its investigation of her by the Fitness to Practice panel. That panel, after hearing substantial evidence had to restart on the panel medical member was unable to continue with . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Michalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Judicial Review

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.561214

Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 14 Feb 2008

The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged when, after several months, the court had been presented with no evidence of his involvement. He said that the public accusations of involvement had devastated his career, his private life and his health. The defendant responded that the ex gratia compensation scheme did not apply to extradition proceedings.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. The prosecutors had repeatedly made statements for which they knew the evidence was either non-existent or erroneous. The purpose of the compensation scheme was self-evidently to compensate those who had spent a period in custody resulting from a serious default on the part of a police officer or of some other public authority, in this case the CPS. In extradition proceedings, the defendant faces criminal charges before a UK court, and the wrong he suffers does not differ.
The court allowed the claimant to pursue its suggestion that the CPS had acted in breach of duty, and described that duty: ‘in the event of conflict between its instructions from the requesting state and its duty to the court, the CPS’s primary duty is to the court. ‘ The CPS were in breach of that duty: ‘the extradition proceedings themselves were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11 rather than for the purpose of putting him on trial for non-disclosure offences. We also consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence amounted to an abuse of process. The proceedings were used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law that a terrorist suspect could (at that time) be held without charge for only 7 days.’ and ‘there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the police and the CPS were responsible for serious defaults. ‘

Hooper LJ, Smith LJ, Lord Clarke MR
[2008] EWCA Civ 72, [2008] 3 WLR 375, [2008] QB 836, [2008] 2 All ER 1023, [2008] ACD 49
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Lee Admn 18-Mar-1999
Application for judicial review of CPS decision on disclosure of evidence before committal.
Held: The court recognised an ongoing duty of disclosure from the time of arrest. At the stage before committal, there are continuing obligations on . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL 27-Jul-2000
The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
Appeal from – Raissi and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 30-Nov-2007
The claimants had been arrested under the 2000 Act, held for differing lengths of time and released without charge. They sought damages for false imprisonment.
Held: The officers had acted on their understanding that senior offcers had more . .
Appeal from – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Samuel Knowles, Junior v United States of America and Another PC 24-Jul-2006
(The Bahamas) The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant to face drugs charges. The appellant said that if extradited, he would not receive a fair trial, having been declared publicly by the US President to be a drugs ‘kingpin’.
Cited – The First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 6-May-2005
Sedley LJ: ‘the interpretation of policy is not a matter for the Secretary of State, what a policy means is what it says. Except in the occasional case where a policy has been ambiguously or un-clearly expressed (see R v Derbyshire CCC, ex p Woods . .
Cited – Regina ex parte Grecian v Secretary of State for the Home Department 3-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Alam v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Jan-2009
The claimant sought to challenge the defendant’s housing allocation policy. He said that as a homeless person he should have been given a reasonable preference for housing. The authority said he was not in priority need, and that the temporary . .
Cited – Sher 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 . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Cited – O, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice, Administrative

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.264517

Regina (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) v Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others: CA 28 Jun 2002

The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as unreasonable, and detained him further under 5(3).
Held: If the hospital authority considered the tribunal’s decision unreasonable, it must first apply for judicial review, rather than detain the patient. A second tribunal had since decided how should not be released in any event, but the principle was important. The procedure should be by way of judicial review under rule 54.10. A judicial review decision did re-write history, in setting aside a decision, and therefore the fact that events following the decision had been concluded was no bar. It was therefore equally possible to order a stay under the same procedure.
Dyson L.J. stated that the purpose of a stay in judicial review is clear: ‘It is to suspend the ‘proceedings’ that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge. It preserves the status quo. This will aid the judicial review process and make it more effective. It will ensure so far as possible, that, if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit of his success. In Avon, Glidewell LJ said that the phrase ‘stay of proceedings’ must be given a wide interpretation so as to apply to administrative decisions. In my view it should also be given a wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in [Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry v. Vehicles and Supplies Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 550] would appear to deny jurisdiction in case A [i.e. where the tribunal ordered discharge, but the order had not yet taken effect because the tribunal directed that the discharge was to be deferred to a specific future date]. That would indeed be regrettable and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review . . [It] is common ground that ‘proceedings’ includes not only the process leading up to the making of the decision itself. The Administrative Court routinely grants a stay to prevent the implementation of a decision that has been made but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried into effect. A good example is where a planning authority grants planning permission and an objector seeks permission to apply for judicial review. It is not, I believe, controversial that, if the court grants permission, it may order a stay of the carrying into effect of the planning permission.’
Dyson LJ also discussed the effect of the lack of resources on litigation: ‘I absolutely reject the submission that reasons which would be inadequate if sufficient resources were available may be treated as adequate simply because sufficient resources are not available. Either the reasons are adequate or they are not and the sufficiency of resources is irrelevant to that question.’
Simon Brown LJ based his reasoning on the rule of law, stating: ‘. . the tribunal’s view must prevail; the authority cannot simply overrule the discharge order. Court orders must be respected – the rule of law is the imperative here.’
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Dyson
Times 10-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, Gazette 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 923, [2003] 1 WLR 127, 70 BMLR 40
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 3 5(3), Civil Procedure Rules 54.10
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 23-Jul-2007
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
A police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he . .
Cited – Cala 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 . .
Cited – T, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Aid Agency and Others Admn 26-Apr-2013
In care proceedings, an order had been made for the preparation of an expert report. The legally aided children applied to the defendant for assistance. It allowed a sum less than the minimum figure set by the expert company as a fee for doing the . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.174112

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Garner and Others: Admn 19 Apr 1999

In exceptional cases, where judicial misconduct had been shown to have contributed to a wrongful conviction, it was proper for the Home Secretary to consider compensation for the defendant, and a policy excluding that as a possibility is unlawful.
Rose LJ and Richards J
Times 03-May-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 320
swarbcouk
Criminal Justice Act 1988 133
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 October 2021; Ref: scu.139584

Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School: CA 14 Jul 1978

The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall be final and conclusive,’ and section 107 of the County Courts Act 1959 applied. The Divisional Court had held that judicial review was not available.
Held: The appeal succeeded Geoffrey Lane LJ dissenting).
Applying Anisminic, Lord Denning MR said: ‘the distinction between an error which entails absence of jurisdiction – and an error made within the jurisdiction – is very fine. So fine indeed that it is rapidly being eroded. Take this very case. . [The judge’s] error can be described on the one hand as an error which went to his jurisdiction. . By holding that it was not a ‘structural alteration . . or addition’ he deprived himself of jurisdiction to determine those matters. On the other hand . . it can plausibly be said that he had jurisdiction to inquire into the meaning of the words . . and that his wrong interpretation of them was only an error within his jurisdiction, and not an error taking him outside it. . I would suggest that this distinction should now be discarded. The High Court has, and should have, jurisdiction to control the proceedings of inferior courts and tribunals by way of judicial review. When they go wrong in law, the High Court should have power to put them right. . The way to get things right is to hold thus: no court or tribunal has any jurisdiction to make an error of law on which the decision of the case depends. If it makes such an error, it goes outside its jurisdiction and certiorari will lie to correct it . . I am of opinion that certiorari lies to quash the determination of the judge, even though it was made by statute ‘final and conclusive.”
Dissenting, Geoffrey Lane LJ said: ‘The judge is considering the words . . which he ought to consider. He is not embarking on some unauthorised or extraneous or irrelevant exercise. All that he has done is to come to what appears to this court to be a wrong conclusion upon a difficult question. It seems to me that, if this judge is acting outside his jurisdiction, so then is every judge who comes to a wrong decision on a point of law. Accordingly, I take the view that no form of certiorari is available to the tenant.’
Lord Denning MR, Geoffrey Lane LJ
[1978] 2 EGLR 61, [1978] CLY 2324, [1978] EWCA Civ 5, [1979] QB 56
Bailii
Housing Act 1974, County Courts Act 1959 107
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
All Public Law Challenges are For a Nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Cited by:
considered – Bent v High Cliff Developments Ltd and Another ChD 2-Sep-1999
The replacement by a tenant of windows in a flat did not amount to structural alterations. The lease was clear as to what could constitute such alterations, and despite the different uses of the term in the lease, it clearly did not include either . .
Cited – Irvine v Moran 1991
The tenant took a lease for under 7 years, accepting repairing and other obligations. The question was how those obligations fitted the landlord’s implied obligations under section 32, and the effect of the section on decorating covenants. The . .
Cited – Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Majority Overruled – In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
Cited – Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority CA 20-May-2009
The parties had settled a personal injury claim, on the basis as expected that the claimant would be provided with accommodation by the local authority. It later turned out that accommodation would not be provided, and he returned to court to . .
Cited – Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.183197

Dalton, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 27 Jul 2020

Andrews J
[2020] EWHC 2013 (Admin), [2020] WLR(D) 444
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.652934

Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 4 Oct 1990

16 local authorities joined together to challenge the bringing in of the community charge, and of rules giving central government a greater say over management of local finance by local authorities.
Held: Acts which are essentially political are subject to a lesser standard of justification to resist intervention by the courts. These decisions related to a matter of national economic policy, and the court would not intervene outside of ‘the extremes of bad faith, improper motive or manifest absurdity’ and the court should be particularly cautious and reluctant to intervene.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘The decided cases on this subject establish the principle that the courts will readily imply terms, where necessary, to ensure fairness of procedure for the protection of parties who may suffer a detriment in consequence of administrative action. Clearly, this principle applies to decisions whereby citizens may be affected in their person, their property, or their reputation. The principal equally applies to public bodies or public authorities affected by an administrative decision which are based on their having acted, or which necessarily implies they have acted, unlawfully or discreditably’.
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
[1990] 3 WLR 898, [1991] 1 AC 521, [1991] UKHL 3
Bailii
Local Government Finance Act 1988
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AXA 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 . .
Cited – Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills SC 25-Feb-2015
Appeal about the distribution of European Structural Funds among the regions of the United Kingdom. It arises out of the complaint of a number of local authorities in Merseyside and South Yorkshire about the way in which it is proposed to distribute . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.194048

Cart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others: Admn 1 Dec 2009

The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any form of appeal. Both Tribunals had been established as superior courts of record.
Held: Cart’s application failed. The applications of U and XC succeeded. Judicial review is available against the decisions of the Upper Tribunal, but only in exceptional circumstances: ‘SIACA s.1(3) and TCEA s.3(5) cannot be construed as excluding the judicial review jurisdiction from SIAC and UT respectively, whatever the historic scope of the expression ‘superior court of record’. SIAC is in principle amenable to judicial review only for any excess of jurisdiction. The court examined the history and justification of the new tribunals structure. Built into the system was the idea that the Upper Tribunal should offer the effective equivalent of judicial review of decisions of the First Tier Tribunals.
Laws LJ said ‘The tribunal system is designed to be so far as possible a self-sufficient structure, dealing internally with errors of law made at first instance and resorting to higher appellate authority only where a legal issue of difficulty or of principle requires it. By this means serious questions of law are channelled into the legal system without the need of post-Anisminic judicial review.’ and ‘Let it be supposed that a review of past cases, and the evolution of our courts since the Curia Regis of King William I, demonstrate that the prerogative writs have not run to superior courts of record and indeed that the expression ‘superior courts of record’ has consistently been used by judges and commentators to refer to courts not amenable to the writs. Does it follow that the bare designation by Parliament of an institution as such a court, as has been done by SIACA s.1(3) and TCEA s.3(5), excludes the judicial review jurisdiction? I think not.’
‘if the litigant has reached the end of the appeal road, he should not generally be allowed a fresh start down a different track marked judicial review.’
Owen J, Laws LJ
[2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin), [2010] PTSR 824, [2010] 2 FCR 309, [2010] 1 All ER 908, [2010] 2 WLR 1012, [2009] STI 3167, [2010] STC 493
Bailii
Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 1(3), Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 3(5), Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – RC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions UTAA 15-Apr-2009
. .
Cited – A and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-2009
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had been subjected to severe restrictions. They were foreign nationals suspected of terrorist involvement, but could not be deported for fear of being tortured. The UK had derogated from the Convention to put the . .
Cited – Rex v Berkley and Bragge 1819
Orders of justices of peace, made in pursuance of the Excise laws, may be removed by certiorari: and the words ‘party, person,’ andC. in the Act of 23 G 2, C 18, do not include the Crown; therefore a certiorari, on the motion of His Majesty’s . .
Cited – Rex v Cheltenham Commissioners QBD 1841
A statute provided that any decision of the Quarter Sessions as to the levying of certain rates was to be ‘final, binding, and conclusive to all intents and purposes whatsoever’, and that no order made in that connection ‘shall . . be removed or . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Ex parte Bradlaugh QBD 1878
A section in an Act of Parliament read: ‘and if . . the magistrate or justices shall be satisfied that such articles, or any of them, are of the character stated in the warrant and that such or any of them have been kept for any of the purposes . .
Cited – Regina v His Honour Judge Sir Donald Hurst, ex parte Smith QBD 1960
The County Court Judge had directed the removal from the electoral register the names of a number of persons who were not party to the proceedings before him. Motions were brought in the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash his . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
Cited – Regina v University of London; Ex parte Vijayatunga 1988
The court considered the powers of the Visitors to the University. Simon Brown J said: ‘The Visitor enjoys untrammelled jurisdiction to investigate and correct wrongs done in the administration of the internal law of a Foundation to which he is . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fayed CA 13-Nov-1996
The nature of the Secretary of State’s objections and a chance to reply are to be given if the Secretary intends to deny an application for naturalisation. Administrative convenience cannot justify unfairness. The court deprecated ‘fishing . .
Cited – Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School CA 14-Jul-1978
The court considered the finality of decision of a county court judge regarding the interpretation of the phrase ‘structural alteration’ in the 1974 Act. Paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 8 provided that the determination of the county court judge ‘shall . .
Cited – Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon QBD 1984
C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal.
Held: Certiorari would lie. . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision) CA 9-Mar-2004
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had . .
Cited – Regina v Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain QBD 7-Jul-2000
On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only . .
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Cited – Strickson, Regina (On the Application of) v Preston County Court and Others CA 8-Oct-2007
The court was required to revisit the circumstances in which the High Court may properly entertain a judicial review of orders made by a judge in the county court.
Laws LJ said: ‘How should such a defect be described in principle? I think a . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Cart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .
At First Instance – Cart 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 . .
Cited – Ogunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.381677

Ryan and Another v Friction Dynamics Ltd and others: ChD 14 Jun 2000

When granting asset freezing orders in support of proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction the court should exercise caution, particularly under the section since the court would not have full knowledge of the issues. Where good grounds existed, and comity required a court to grant an order, the requirements of risk of dissipation, and of a good case must be met; an order might be made even if refused by a foreign court, and the existence of a world-wide order already did not prevent an English court granting a local order.
Times 14-Jun-2000
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.88941

McKenzie, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for Constitutional Affairs: Admn 11 Jan 2007

The claimant appealed against a decision on his complaint about the behaviour of a judge.
[2007] EWHC 7 (Admin)
Bailii
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 2(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.247776

Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2): SC 29 Jun 2016

Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision

The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Held: (Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, and Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore JSC dissenting) The application failed. It was however common ground that the question now before the court was not whether the majority were correct but whether the issue should be re-opened, and: ‘There is no probability, likelihood or prospect (and, for completeness, in my view also no real possibility) that a court would have seen or would see, in the process of preparation, re-drafting and finalisation of the stage 2B report and in the associated material which can now be seen to have existed, anything which could, would or should have caused the Secretary of State to doubt the General Conclusions, or which made it irrational or otherwise unjustifiable to act on them in June 2004. On that basis, the application to set aside the House of Lords’ judgment by reference to the Rashid and other documents disclosed late must fail.’
Lord Kerr, dissenting, said: ‘If the Rashid documents had been before the House of Lords, the following matters would have had to be squarely confronted: ‘despite the claims for their independence, the consultants had been told in unequivocal terms what the government hoped would be the outcome of their report;
the draft report had to be submitted to BIOT officials who had the opportunity to approve or require amendment of its contents;
much of the science of the report (although not that relating to climatic changes) had been severely criticised by Dr Sheppard;
many of the criticisms of the report by Mr Jenness had been endorsed by Dr Sheppard (even though he was also extremely critical of Mr Jenness);
most importantly, the draft report’s central findings in relation to climate change, couched in conditional terms, had been altered to provide a firm prediction that such changes would take place.
In my view, the collective effect of these revelations is that the appeal might well have been decided differently. The passages from the speeches of the majority which have been quoted earlier, for perfectly understandable reasons, bear no trace of reservation or doubt as to the anticipated consequences of any attempt to resettle the islands. If the members of the House of Lords knew that much of the science of the report was considered to be suspect by the scientist retained by the FCO; that the consultants had been given a clear indication of what the government hoped the report would deliver; that the changes to the conclusions of the preliminary study (which were known) proved to be a mild herald of the more radical changes to the Phase 2B report; that the Chagos Islands were not in an active cyclone belt and that this had a direct bearing on the predictions contained in the report, is it likely that the speeches of the majority concerning the anticipated consequences of an attempt to resettle would have been expressed in such emphatic terms? In my judgment it is not. And if the majority felt compelled, as it surely would, to recognise the lack of certainty in some of the central predictions, is it likely that they would have been prepared to hold as rational a decision to completely deny the Chagossians the right to return to their homeland, simply because a failure to do so would give rise to a campaign that the government should fund resettlement, when it had already been held that they were under no obligation to do so? In my opinion, it is at least distinctly possible that a different view would have been taken by the majority and that the outcome of the appeal would have been different. I would therefore grant the application to re-open the appeal.’
Lord Kerr cited with approval the following summary: ‘A defendant public authority and its lawyers owe a vital duty to make full and fair disclosure of relevant material. That should include (1) due diligence in investigating what material is available; (2) disclosure which is relevant or assists the claimant, including on some as yet unpleaded ground; and (3) disclosure at the permission stage if permission is resisted. . . A main reason why disclosure is not ordered in judicial review is because courts trust public authorities to discharge this self-policing duty, which is why such anxious concern is expressed where it transpires that they have not done so (Fordham, Judicial Review, 6th ed, 2012, p125).’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2016] WLR(D) 344, [2016] UKSC 35, [2017] AC 300, [2016] HRLR 16, [2016] 3 WLR 157, UKSC 2015/0021
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Reconsidered – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
Applied – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Taylor v Lawrence CA 4-Feb-2002
A party sought to re-open a judgment on the Court of Appeal after it had been perfected. A case had been tried before a judge. One party had asked for a different judge to be appointed, after the judge disclosed that he had been a client of the firm . .
Evidence emerged – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 11-Jun-2013
The claimant, displaced from the Chagos Archipelago, challenged a decision by the respondent to create a no-take Marine Protected Area arround the island which would make life there impossible if he and others returned. The respondent renewed his . .
Cited – Re U (A Child) CA 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
Cited – Bain v The Queen PC 16-Mar-2009
(New Zealand) The defendant had at a previous Privy Council appeal had his conviction for murder overturned. He now challenged the order for a retrial, saying that subsequent disclosures made this unfair.
Held: The order was refused. The . .
Cited – Re U (A Child) CA 24-Feb-2005
The applicant sought a second appeal saying there was fresh evidence.
Held: Applying Taylor -v- Lawrence, a second appeal could only be entertained where it was shown that the earlier judicial process had been critically undermined. It must be . .
Cited – Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General, Her Majesty’s British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner QBD 9-Oct-2003
The Chagos Islands had been a British dependent territory since 1814. The British government repatriated the islanders in the 1960s, and the Ilois now sought damages for their wrongful displacement, misfeasance, deceit, negligence and to establish a . .
At CA – Chagos Islanders v Attorney-General and Another CA 22-Jul-2004
The claimants sought leave to appeal against a finding that they had no cause of action for their expulsion from their islands.
Held: ‘Exile without colour of law is forbidden by Magna Carta. That it can amount to a public law wrong is already . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Another, ex parte Bancoult Admn 3-Nov-2000
The applicant sought judicial review of an ordinance made by the commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory. An issue was raised whether the High Court in London had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and grant relief.
Held: . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs CA 23-May-2014
The appellant wished to challenge the decision made by the respondent to declare a ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Area’ covering their former home islands of Chagos. They sought to have entered in evidence of an improper motive in the Minister making . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd CA 1990
Legitimate Expectation once created not withdrawn
The claimant said that a change of practice by the Revenue was contrary to a legitimate expectation.
Held: The Inland Revenue could not withdraw from a representation if it would cause: substantial unfairness to the applicant; if the . .
Cited – Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Edwards and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Environment Agency and Others SC 15-Dec-2010
Clarification was sought of the costs principles applicable on an application to the House of Lords. The paying party said that it was a requirement of the 1998 Convention under which the application fell, that a remedy should not be available only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.566209

Reprieve and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Prime Minister: CA 30 Jun 2021

Challenge to the decision of the Prime Minister not to hold a public inquiry into alleged complicity of British state agents in the unlawful rendition, detention and mistreatment of individuals by other states in the years following the attack on New York in September 2001. The Divisional Court (Dame Victoria Sharp P and Farbey J) determined two preliminary issues against the claimants. The claimants appeal against that determination. The issues are:
a) Does article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the claim for judicial review? and, if it does,
b) Are the claimants entitled to disclosure in accordance with the standard set in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 AC 269 (‘AF (No 3)’)?
The Divisional Court answered ‘no’ to each question.
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ
[2021] EWCA Civ 972, [2021] WLR(D) 365
Bailii, WLRD
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.663471

CPRE Kent v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: SC 30 Jul 2021

On application for statutory review of a planning decision in which the claimant was refused permission to proceed, the court was now asked whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in upholding as a practice that, in the context of such a refusal of permission, where two defendants and an interested party each incurred expense in preparing a separate acknowledgement of service and summary grounds for contesting the claim, each had a prima facie entitlement to its costs.
Lord Reed (President), Lord Hodge (Deputy President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 36
Bailii, Bailii Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales

Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666311

Regina 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 relating to trial on indictment’ in the Act, deciding that the words relate only to orders directed to and affecting the exercise of its jurisdiction by the Crown Court. There is nothing to suggest that the words are intended to limit in any way the power of the High Court to make orders against any party other than the Crown Court. Judicial review would not lie to a superior court of record in the absence of express provision.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Times 07-May-1993, Times 26-Nov-1993, Gazette 23-Jun-1993, Independent 07-Dec-1993, Independent 07-May-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1524, [1993] 4 All ER 928, (1994) 98 Cr App R 461, [1994] 1 AC 9, (1993) 97 Cr App R 203
Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 20-Jan-1993
MEP’s are susceptible to prosecution. The National courts do have jurisdiction. . .
Dicta approved – 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
Cited – G v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interim Decision) CA 9-Mar-2004
A certificate had been granted by the Home Secretary that the applicant was suspected of terrorism, and he had accordingly been detained under special procedures. When his case had come before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal, they had . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.87253

Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee: HL 1921

Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to prosecution, and empowered the Board of Trade to delegate their powers for prosecutions to local authorities. The Newcastle Profiteering Committee had reported the Appellants for excessive charges on the sale of chocolate biscuits, and intended to institute proceedings.
Held: The House considered section 47 of the 1973 Act.
Lord Birkenhead LC said: ‘Now, we have in this case the provision contained in an Act of Parliament that the Board of Trade, or those to whom they delegate this power, shall ‘take proceedings’ against the seller before a Court of summary jurisdiction if in their judgment the circumstances so require, and the sub-section goes on to provide that if in ‘such proceedings’ it is found that the complaint is established certain consequences – namely, alternatively a fine or imprisonment, shall follow. But the proceedings in respect of which it is provided that there shall be either a fine or imprisonment, if there be a conviction, are the proceedings which are taken by the Board, or its representative, in pursuance of the peremptory terms which are used in the sub-section; and I am unable to see how it can be even contended that these proceedings are not proceedings within the meaning of the language used by Lord Esher and not impeached by counsel for the appellants in his argument.
It has long been recognised that the words under consideration are to be widely, and not restrictively, construed. I find myself in agreement with the whole of Lord Esher’s judgment.
Reference was made in the argument and in the judgments below to a later decision, PULBROOK, Ex parte, which indeed, if the matter were in any way doubtful, would, if accepted in this House, throw a great light upon the only question which requires decision. It was there held that an appeal does not lie from an order made by a Judge at Chambers under section 8 of the Law of Libel (amendment) Act, 1888 (51 and 52 Vict. C. 64), allowing a criminal prosecution to be commenced against the proprietor, publisher, editor, or person responsible for the publication of a newspaper, for libel published therein. In such a case the order which is made by a Judge at Chambers is not necessarily followed by any proceedings at all; the person who has so obtained the order of the Judge may, or he may not, initiate a prosecution upon the strength of such order. It was, nevertheless held, and in my judgment rightly held, that there is no appeal from such an order because it is given in a criminal matter. This decision was reached, although the Act itself, by directing that no prosecution shall be commenced without the order of a Judge plainly recognises that the actual commencement of the prosecution is a later and a distinguishable stage in the matter.
. .
I am of the opinion, for these reasons, that this was an order made in a criminal cause or matter, and that no appeal from it can be heard. The appeal therefore fails, and I move your Lordships accordingly.’
Lord Sumner agreed: ‘I think that when the local Profiteering Act committee resolved in the terms in which they did resolve, not only that there should be a refund of one half-penny, but that there should be a direction that proceedings be taken, they had already satisfied all conditions precedent, because it had appeared to them that the circumstances required them to take the proceedings which thereupon they proceeded to take; and the passing of that resolution was in my opinion not the mere satisfaction of a condition but was itself the first step in taking proceedings against the seller, although no doubt as a matter of fact subsequent steps would be taken personally by their clerk prosecuting on their behalf, and satisfying the words of the Act that they should take proceedings, and formally instituting what is called a prosecution before the Justices. It seems to me that the commencement of those proceedings by passing the resolution was itself the commencement of a criminal matter . . ‘
Lord Birkenhead LC, Lord Sumner
(1921) 90 LJ (KB) 1064
Judicature Act 1873 47
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .

Cited by:
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.666305

N (Father of J) v The Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown Prosecution Service): Admn 25 May 2011

The court was asked whether, and in what circumstances, the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute a parent for child abduction contrary to Section 1 of the 1984 Act may be the subject of judicial review.
Foskett J
[2011] EWHC 1360 (Admin)
Bailii
Child Abduction Act 1984 1
England and Wales

Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.440194

Regina v The National Lottery Commission ex parte Camelot Group Plc: Admn 21 Sep 2000

The Commission had considered bids tendered in open competition to run The National Lottery. Neither of the two candidates who entered bids was considered to have satisfied all the criteria necessary to be given the relevant licence. The Commission decided to abandon the competitive procedure and then gave one of the bidders an opportunity to allay its concerns about their suitability. It did not give the same opportunity to Camelot.
Held: This was conspicuously unfair.
Where an authority was exercising a statutory power, that power must be exercised fairly. It was unacceptably unfair, in a licensing procedure, to continue negotiations with only one of two applicants where the applications of both had been rejected on the first round. Such a lack of even-handedness required clear and compelling justification which was absent in this case. Each applicant must be given the same opportunity to negotiate.
Richards J
Times 12-Oct-2000, [2001] EMLR 3, [2000] EWHC Admin 391
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .

Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham and Others), Regina (on The Application of) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and Others Admn 13-Feb-2013
Judicial review was sought of the changes to the marking systems for GCSE English in 2012.
Held: The claim failed. Though properly brought, the failure was in the underlying structue of the qualification, and not in the respondent’s attempts . .
Cited – Gallaher Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Competition and Markets Authority SC 16-May-2018
Extent and consequences of duties of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘fairness’, said to have been owed by the Office of Fair Trading to those subject to investigation under the Competition Act 1998. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.140206

Practice Direction (Crown Office List: Provision of Relevant Copy Legislation): QBD 16 Dec 1996

Bundle of statutes to be provided with cases for application for judicial review.
Times 16-Dec-1996
England and Wales

Updated: 02 July 2021; Ref: scu.84879

Council for Licensed Conveyancers v Paul Mooney and Kathleen Mooney (By Original Action) and Between Paul Mooney v Council for Licensed Conveyancers and Angela Viney: CA 18 Dec 1997

The respondent’s practice had suffered intervention by the Council. He complained that they had not followed the required procedure.
Held: The notices were lawful. The issues were ones of public law, and the respondent was required to frame his claim by way of judicial review, and to use an ordinary action would be an abuse of process. This was not a case in which the public law element was incidental.
[1997] EWCA Civ 3038
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1985 31
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Rossminster Ltd HL 13-Dec-1979
The House considered the power of an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue to seize and remove materials found on premises which a warrant obtained on application to the Common Serjeant authorised him to enter and search; but where the source of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 December 2020; Ref: scu.143437

Regina (Aru) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA 30 Jan 2004

The applicant had been cautioned by the police. The victim sought judicial review of that decision. The respondent now appealed.
Held: The court of appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judicial review in a criminal matter where there had been a final disposal of the matter. Any appeal must be to the House of Lords. The police caution operated as such, and no review would lay. The section referred to a criminal ’cause or matter’ not to proceedings. An official caution appeared to be a way of disposing of a complaint.
Maurice Kay LJ noted the use of the phrase ‘criminal cause or matter’ denoted a ‘wider ambit’ than merely ‘criminal proceedings’.
References: Times 05-Feb-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1697
Judges: Waller, Longmore, Maurice Kay, LJJ
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 5, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1), Administration of Justice Act 1960 1(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

Cited – Armand v Home Secretary 1943
. .
([1943] AC 147)
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
(Times 06-Feb-01, , , [2001] 1 WLR 196, [2001] 1 All ER 815, [2001] UKHL 3, [2002] ILPr 27)
Cited – Day v Grant (Note) CA 1985
(January 1985) The court must look to the underlying nature of the proceedings in which the order was made and against which an appeal was sought to see to which court an appeal lay. ‘So Lord Wright was saying that you look not at the particular . .
([1987] QB 972)
Appeal from – Aru, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Admn 23-May-2003
. .
(, [2003] EWHC 1310 (Admin))

This case is cited by:

Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
farrelly_ccniQBNI09
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 . .
(, [2009] NIQB 20)
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
farrelly_ccniQBNI09
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 . .
(, [2009] NIQB 20)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193378

Regina (on the Application of Bateman) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 22 Oct 2001

The court emphasised the need for applicants for judicial review to review the merits of their case
References: [2001] EWHC Admin 797
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

See Also – Regina (Bateman and Bateman) v Legal Services Commission Admn 10-Sep-2001 (, [2001] EWHC Admin 696)
The applicants sought a judicial review after their legal aid certificates were revoked for non-disclosure of various financial receipts. A financial statement prepared on their behalf had suggested substantial capital assets. The relationship . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – Bryant and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis Admn 23-May-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 1314 (Admin))
Several claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of decisions taken by the defendant in the investigation of suggestions that their telephone answering systems had been intercepted by people working for the News of the World. They said that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.167246

Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council Ex parte Hammell: CA 1989

Parker LJ said of the plaintiff’s application for a review of the decision on her homelessness application: ‘She is entitled to protection with regard to her public law right to have the necessary inquiries made and the decision properly made . . the injustice to the applicant, if she is not housed but is right, is clearly immense . . This is no more than interim protection for as long as it takes to decide the substantive matter . .’
An interim injunction might be discharged where the plaintiff cannot make out the strong prima facie case that is required, where the potential balance of injustice favours not granting an injunction, and where the public interest likewise lies in not granting an injunction.
References: [1989] QB 518, [1989] 1 All ER 1202, [1989] 2 WLR 90, [1989] Fam Law 430
Judges: Parker LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979 ([1980] SC (HL) 1, [1980] 1 WLR 182, , [1979] UKHL 7)
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .

This case is cited by:

Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . .
Cited – Lawer, Regina (on the Application of) v Restormel Borough Council Admn 12-Oct-2007 (, [2007] EWHC 2299 (Admin))
The applicant was joint tenant of a council property. She suffered domestic violence, and said she was advised by the local authority to surrender her tenancy on the basis that they would rehouse her. She did so. The authority refused to provide a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.228956

Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms: 1972

References: [1972] 1 All ER 280
Coram: Donaldson J
Ratio: The Secretary of State proposed to introduce new regulations for the training of agricultural workers. It sent a notice inviting representations from a body representing the mushroom growing industry, but the letter was not received. The regulation was made, and the respondent now argued that it was not bound by the regulations because the industry had not been consulted as required.
Held: Consultation requires more than the mere giving of notice, or as in this case the sending of a letter: ‘the essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation, extended with a receptive mind, to give advice’. Having decided that the industry representative should be consulted, the Secretary could not go ahead without doing so. The regulations were not binding on the defendant.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 17 March 2019
Ref: 188776

Regina v Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Moore: CA 1975

References: [1975] 1 WLR 624
Coram: Lord Denning MR
Ratio: Lord Denning MR observed that the courts should leave the tribunals to interpret the Supplementary Benefits Act in a broad reasonable way, according to the spirit and not the letter. To uphold the purposes of judicial review the ‘record is generously interpreted’.

Last Update: 04 April 2017
Ref: 442732

Singh v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 15 May 2010

References: [2010] UKUT 174 (TCC), [2010] BPIR 933, [2010] BTC 1548, [2010] STI 1723, [2010] STC 2020
Links: Bailii
Coram: Warren J P
Ratio: UTTC JUDICIAL REVIEW – the concession of ‘equitable liability’ known as the Noble practice – standing to bring judicial review proceedings – no.
The bankrupt objected to the attempted proof by the Revenue in his bankrupty. He now renewed his application to bring judicial review.
Held: He had no standing to bring judiial review proceedings. Warren J approved the aproach suggested in Hurren, that agreement should be sought between the bankrupt and the inspector, with the trustee ensuring that any agreement was proper.
This case cites:

Cited – Smith (a bankrupt) -v- Braintree District Council HL ([1989] 3 All ER 897, [1989] 3 WLR 1317, [1990] 2 AC 215)
The House considered the effects of bankruptcy on the imposition of a committal to imprisonment in default of paying rates.
The purpose of section 285 is to preserve the estate of the bankrupt for the benefit of his unsecured creditors.
Cited – Heath -v- Tang, Stevens -v- Peacock CA (Independent 14-Oct-93, Times 11-Aug-93, [1993] 4 ALL ER 694, [1993] 1 WLR 1421)
The bankrupt applicants each applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the judgment for a liquidated sum on which the bankruptcy petition had been based. In the first case, the trustee in bankruptcy indicated his unwillingness to . .
Cited – Wordsworth -v- Dixon CA ([1997] BPIR 337)
The bankrupt had been a defendant in the action brought by the plaintiff. The court considered his standing to appeal.
Held: The right to appeal vested in the trustee. Sir Thomas Bingham MR referred to the case of Heath v Tang and said: ‘that . .
Cited – Re a Debtor, ex parte the Debtor -v- Dodwell ChD ([1949] Ch 236)
Harman J held that it was for the bankrupt’s trustee alone to settle with the Crown in a case where the bankrupt had been discharged and there was no tax assessment. . .
Cited – Re Hurren (a bankrupt) ChD ([1983] 1 WLR 183)
There might have been a surplus after paying the debts due to the Inland Revenue (the major creditor).
Held: The way forward was for the trustee to agree the tax liability with the Revenue but only with the consent of the bankrupt. Walton J . .
Cited – Sivasubramaniam -v- Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further & Higher Education and Another CA (Gazette 23-Jan-03, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 1738, [2003] 1 WLR 475, [2003] CP Rep 27, [2003] 2 All ER 160)
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07-Jun-16
Ref: 428155

Regina v Durham County Council, ex parte Robinson; 31 Jan 1992

References: Times 31-Jan-1992
Coram: Pill J
The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the local authority to terminate his stallholder’s licence. The parties had agreed that a sufficient element of public law was involved to give the court jurisdiction to review the decision.
Held: It was not open to the parties to create jursidiction for the court. No sufficient element of public law was involved and a review was refused.
This case is cited by:

Cited – Hampshire County Council -v- Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) -v- Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1056, Times 25-Aug-03, [2004] 1 WLR 233)
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .

Islwyn Borough Council and Another v Newport Borough Council: CA 22 Jun 1993

References: Times 28-Jun-1993
Later legislation does not frustrate agreement between the parties.

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer: QBD 18 Oct 1993

References: Gazette 19-Jan-1994, Times 27-Oct-1993, Independent 26-Oct-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 621
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.
Statutes: Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
This case is cited by:

Cited – Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd -v- CCA Stationery Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2989 (Ch))
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 . .
Cited – Nicholas Cavanagh Raymond Bhatt Frank Redmond -v- The Health Service Commissioner CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 1578, Times 13-Jan-06)
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 . .