The Congregation of The Poor Sisters of Nazareth and The Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent De Paul: SCS 1 Jul 2015

For Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Ministers dated 28 May 2015 to appoint Ms Susan O’Brien QC as Chair to the Historical Child Abuse Inquiry in terms of section 4(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 87, 2015 GWD 22-385, 2015 SLT 445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Administrative, Natural Justice

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.550105

Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission: ECJ 13 Feb 1979

ECJ Observance of the right to be heard is required in all proceedings in which sanctions, in particular fines or penalty payments, may be imposed as a fundamental principle of community law. It must be respected even if the proceedings in question are administrative proceedings.
In the matter of competition and in the context of proceedings for a finding of infringements of articles 85 or 86 of the treaty, observance of the right to be heard requires that the undertakings concerned must have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the commission in support of its claim that there has been an infringement.
The obligation on the commission under article 20 (2) of regulation no 17 to observe professional secrecy must be reconciled with the right to be heard. By providing undertakings from whom information has been obtained with a guarantee that their interests, which are closely connected with observance of professional secrecy, are not jeopardized, that provision enables the commission to collect on the widest possible scale the requisite data for the fulfilment of its task of supervision without the undertakings being able to prevent it from doing so ; the commission may not however use, to the detriment of an undertaking in proceedings for a finding of an infringement of the rules on competition, facts or documents which it cannot in its view disclose if such a refusal of disclosure adversely affects that undertaking’s opportunity to make known effectively its views on the truth or implications of those facts or documents or again on the conclusions drawn by the commission from them.
Europa
If a product could be used for different purposes and if these different uses are in accordance with economic needs, which are themselves also different, there are good grounds for accepting that this product may, according to the circumstances, belong to separate markets which may present specific features which differ from the standpoint both of the structure and of the conditions of competition. However this finding does not justify the conclusion that such a product together with all the other products which can replace it as far as concerns the various uses to which it may be put and with which it may compete, forms one single market. The concept of the relevant market in fact implies that there can be effective competition between the products which form part of it and this presupposes that there is a sufficient degree of interchangeability between all the products forming part of the same market in so far as a specific use of such products is concerned.
The dominant position referred to in article 86 of the treaty relates to a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers. Such a position does not preclude some competition, which it does where there is a monopoly or a quasimonopoly, but enables the undertaking which profits by it, if not to determine, at least to have an appreciable influence on the conditions under which that competition will develop, and in any case to act largely in disregard of it so long as such conduct does not operate to its detriment.
Very large market shares are highly significant evidence of the existence of a dominant position. Other relevant factors are the relationship between the market shares of the undertaking concerned and of its competitors, especially those of the next largest, the technological lead of the undertaking over its competitors, the existence of a highly developed sales network and the absence of potential competition.

Europa The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth of that competition.
An undertaking which is in a dominant position on a market and ties purchasers – even if it does so at their request – by an obligation or promise on their part to obtain all or most of their requirements exclusively from the said undertaking abuses its dominant position within the meaning of article 86 of the treaty, whether the obligation in question is stipulated without further qualification or whether it is undertaken in consideration of the grant of a rebate. The same applies if the said undertaking, without tying the purchasers by a formal obligation, applies, either under the terms of agreements concluded with these purchasers or unilaterally, a system of fidelity rebates, that is to say discounts conditional on the customer’s obtaining all or most of its requirements from the undertaking in a dominant position.
Obligations of this kind to obtain supplies exclusively from a particular undertaking, whether or not they are in consideration of rebates or of the granting of fidelity rebates intended to give the purchaser an incentive to obtain his supplies exclusively from the undertaking in a dominant position, are incompatible with the objective of undistorted competition within the common market, because they are not based on an economic transaction which justifies this burden or benefit but are designed to deprive the purchaser of or restrict his possible choices of sources of supply and to deny other producers access to the market.

Europa The abuse of a dominant position and the restriction of competition as attributes of the contracts in question are not avoided by the so-called” english” clause contained in them whereby the purchasers undertake to notify the undertaking in a dominant position of any more favourable offer made to them by competitors and are free, if that undertaking does not adjust its prices to the said offer, to obtain their supplies from competitors. In these circumstances a clause of this kind is such as to enable the undertaking in a dominant position to realize an abuse of that dominant position.
The effect of fidelity rebates is to apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties in that two purchasers pay a different price for the same quantity of the same product depending on whether they obtain their supplies exclusively from the undertaking in a dominant position or have several sources of supply.

Citations:

C-85/76, [1979] EUECJ C-85/76, [1979] ECR 461

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedAttheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
CitedChester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Natural Justice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132487

Stevens v School of Oriental and African Studies and others: ChD 2 Feb 2001

It was not unfair or a denial of the applicant’s human rights, to strike out a second action which differed only marginally in the parties involved, from an earlier action already struck out by the court for delay, and where the claimant had not yet satisfied a costs order made against him arising from that earlier action.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89548

Leary v National Union of Vehicle Builders: 1971

The court faced questions on a trades union’s decision as to the membership of the applicant.
Held: As a general rule, ‘a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in an appellate body.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1971] Ch 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Applied but limitedCalvin v Carr PC 15-Jan-1979
(New South Wales) It was argued that a decision of the stewards of the Australian Jockey Club was void for having been made in breach of the rules of natural justice.
Held: The stewards were entitled to use the evidence of their eyes and their . .
CitedTaylor v OCS Group Ltd CA 31-May-2006
The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior . .
CitedLloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.242342

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and Another, Ex Parte McNally: CA 12 Mar 2001

Where the representative of the chief education officer of the local authority had acted in disciplinary proceedings against a teacher, it would be contrary to natural justice for him to exercise his statutory power to retire with the committee who were to deliberate on the outcome of the hearing. The panel had the right to ask the representative to withdraw in certain circumstances. There was no advice he could give to the panel members which would not better have been given in the presence of the teacher. The decision to exclude the representative was not unreasonable.

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2001, Gazette 11-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 332

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 496 97

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Administrative, Natural Justice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88602

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 found no causal connection beween the treatment and the offence.
Held: There is no over-riding principle of law that reasons must be given for a decision in disciplinary decisions, but fairness will often require them to be given. Does ‘fairness require in this case that reasons should have been given both as to why the Court reached the conclusion that there was no causal connection and why it decided that the sentence of imprisonment was required rather than some lesser sentence which would not have had the same dire consequences for the Applicant? The answer to that question must be in the affirmative. Are there public interest reasons why reasons should not be required? The only public interest reasons . . . advanced relied upon drawing analogies with other judicial bodies. I accept . . . submissions . . . that the examples which he gave are not analogous.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Hooper J

Citations:

Times 17-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 1136

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Army Act 1955 70, Armed Forces Act 1996, Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972 (SI 1972/316) 76(1)

Citing:

CitedRegina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham CA 1991
The court considered the effect of a disciplinary board failing to give reasons. The absence of any right to appeal may be a factor in deciding that reasons should be given. If it is ‘important that there should be an effective means of detecting . .
CitedRegina v Guppy and Another CACD 8-Mar-1994
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) may hear (but not require) evidence in person from an appellant. . .
CitedRegina 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’, . .
CitedLloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Natural Justice, Armed Forces

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87364

Case LXXXVIII 21 E 4, 1 Attaint, Challenge, Judgment: 1220

In an attaint, it is a principal challenge that one of the petty jury is a tenant to one of the grand jury : for if a petty jury be convicted in the attaint, it will be a great prejudice to the seigniory ; for his houses shall be pulled down, and his meadows plowed. The statute of 23 H 8, cap. 3, for attaint, does not takae away the attaint at common law ; but ordains that no attaint shall be brought except in the King’s Bench or Common Pleas at Westminster, and not eIsewhere. In other actions, a challenge that the juror is lord to the party, is only a challenge to the favour.
Juratores debent esse minus suspecti (Jurors should be free of suspicion).

Citations:

[1220] EngR 307, (1220-1623) Jenk 141, (1220) 145 ER 98 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461219

Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd: 1989

The taxpayer complained of a change in Inland Revenue practice which, it said, went against a legitimate expectation created by the scheme.
Held: Judge J said: ‘There is a detailed procedure for resolving disputes between the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer and if necessary for bringing such disputes to the courts for decision. In addition, however, as the Inland Revenue is an ‘administrative body with statutory duties’ (per Lord Wilberforce in Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte National Federation of Self Employed at page 632) it is not immune from an order for judicial review. Since the decision in the House of Lords in Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835 the principle has been established that acts which are an abuse of the Inland Revenue’s powers or acts done outside those powers may be subject to judicial review.
Abuse of power may take the form of unfairness. This is not mere ‘unfairness’ in the general sense. Even if ‘unfair’, efficient performance of the statutory obligations imposed on the Inland Revenue will not, of itself, amount to an abuse of power’

Judges:

Judge J

Citations:

The Times, 17 July 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina 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 . .
CitedWheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another Admn 2-May-2008
The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of the prime minister’s decsion not to hold a referendum on the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon.
Held: The claimant had arguable points under the 2000 Act and otherwise, and permission . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Natural Justice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.277174

A T and T Corporation and Another v Saudi Cable Co: CA 23 May 2000

The test as to whether an arbitrator should declare an interest before adjudicating is the same as the test for a judge, namely whether there was any real danger that he was biased. The Act allowed a court to investigate whether a breach had occurred. Here the adjudicator had been a director of a company which had failed in a bid for the same contract out which arose the dispute at issue. The consensual nature of arbitration did not require a different test.

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Potter, May LJJ

Citations:

Times 23-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 154

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 23, International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAT and T v Saudi Cable (No. 1) ComC 13-Oct-1999
Arbitrator – apparent or unconscious bias – non-executive director of company – whether Gough principle applies to arbitrators. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Natural Justice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77933

Maxwell v Department of Trade and Industry: CA 1974

The plaintiff complained that adverse findings had been made against him by inspectors acting under the companies acts. The inspectors conducted their inquiries in private and heard evidence from individuals. They then informed the persons in respect of whom adverse evidence had been given about the thrust of that evidence but did not provide them with a transcript of the evidence. No cross-examination of witnesses took place.
Held: There was no obligation to furnish draft findings to those persons against whom adverse evidence had been given.
Lord Denning MR considered just what fairness demanded when writing a report which was critical of a person, saying: ‘Forbes J. [to whom the applicant had applied for an injunction to restrain the inspectors from proceeding with their investigation] thought that, in order to do what was fair, after hearing the evidence and studying the documents, the inspectors ought to come to a conclusion (which was necessarily tentative) and put the substance of that conclusion to the witness. He was led to that view by the observation of Sachs LJ in Re Pergamon Press Ltd [1970] 3 All ER at 544, [1971] Ch 405. I do not think that is right. Just think what it means. After hearing all the evidence the inspectors have to sit down and come to tentative conclusions. If these are such as to be critical of any of the witnesses, they have to re-open the inquiry, recall those witnesses, and put to them the criticisms which they are disposed to make. What will be the response of those witnesses? They will at once want to refute the tentative conclusions by calling other witnesses, or by asking for further investigations. In short, the inquiry will develop into a series of minor trials in which a witness will be accused of misconduct and seek to answer it. That would hold up the inquiry indefinitely. I do not think it is necessary. It is sufficient for the inspectors to put the points to the witnesses as and when they come in the first place. After hearing the evidence, the inspectors have to come to their conclusions. These need not be tentative in the least. They can be final and definite, ready for their report.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1974] QB 523, [1974] 2 All ER 122

Cited by:

CitedShoesmith, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440285

Regina v Leicestershire Fire Authority ex parte Thompson: 1978

The proceedings of a watch committee are fatally flawed by the presence of the chief officer.

Citations:

(1978) LOR 373

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFlaherty 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.230097

Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration: 1894

The mere ex officio membership of the committee of the Medical Defence Union was held to be insufficient to disqualify the member from sitting on the disciplinary panel.

Citations:

[1894] 1 QB 750

Cited by:

CitedMeerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.223950

Robins v National Trust Company Ltd: 1927

The rule restricting a third tier court from upsetting a finding where there have been concurrent judgments of two courts on a pure question of fact were not based on any statutory rule.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1927] AC 515

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
CitedKwasi Bekoe v Horace Broomes PC 31-Oct-2005
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant defendant was an attorney-at-law, and the respondent a senior magistrate who was said to have accused the claimant of having given a bribe. The appellant challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196531

Fleet Mortgage and Investment Company Limited v Lower Maisonette: 1972

Natural justice required the High Court Rules to be construed as requiring the tenant to be given notice of the landlord’s application for leave to issue a writ of execution following an alleged breach of a conditional possession order.

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 765

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJephson Homes Housing Association v Moisejevs and Another CA 1-Nov-2000
A possession warrant, properly issued and executed in ignorance of a payment into court by the tenant was not an abuse of process. The tenant had paid funds into court in the mistaken belief that this would be effective to set aside the warrant. She . .
CitedPritchard and Others v Teitelbaum and Others ChD 20-Apr-2011
The claimants sought orders allowing them to re-enter the tenanted properties after eviction in order to allow them recover their possessions left behind. Proceedings for recovery of possession had continued over several years.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187052

Regina v Police Complaints Board ex parte Madden and Rhone: 1983

Double jeopardy, properly understood, is best described in the phrase ‘No man should be tried twice for the same offence’. The court emphasised the word ‘tried’.

Judges:

McNeill J

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 447

Citing:

CitedConnelly v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1964
Plea of Autrefois Acquit is Narrow in Scope
The defendant had been tried for and acquitted of murder. The prosecution then sought to have him tried for robbery out of the same alleged facts. The House considered his plea of autrefois convict.
Held: The majority identified a narrow . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Redgrave) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 22-Jan-2003
The police officer had been accused of an offence. The case was discharged under the section at committal. The Commissioner sought to commence disciplinary proceedings on the same evidence.
Held: The tests of the two sets of hearings were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Natural Justice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181626

AB v The University of XYZ: QBD 6 Nov 2020

Judgment concerned with disciplinary proceedings brought against the Claimant while he was a student at the University of XYZ. In particular, it raises important issues regarding the procedural rights of students facing disciplinary proceedings.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 2978 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Education, Natural Justice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.655921

Regina v Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan: CA 1975

Lord Denning MR said: ‘In recent years we have had to consider the procedure of many bodies who are required to make an investigation and form an opinion . . In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly: but that which fairness requires depends upon the nature of the investigation and the consequences which it may have on persons affected by it. The fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains or penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings, or deprived of remedies or redress, or in some such way adversely afflicted by the investigation and report, then he should be told the case made against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering it. The investigating body is, however, the master of its own procedure. It need not hold a hearing. It can do everything in writing. It need not allow lawyers. It need not put every detail of the case against a man. Suffice it if the broad grounds are given. It need not name its informants. It can give the substance only. Moreover, it need not do everything itself. It can employ secretaries and assistants to do all the preliminary work and leave much to them. But, in the end, the investigating body itself must come to its own decision and make its own report.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 1686, [1976] 1 All ER 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Army Board of Defence Council, ex parte Anderson QBD 1991
Members of the Armed Forces who alleged discrimination did not have access to Industrial Tribunals. The only recourse was to make a service complaint which would then be considered by the Army Board. Anderson complained of race discrimination. His . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Administrative

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.539818

Regina v LL: CACD 2011

It came to light that at the trial of the appellant that one juror was a current employee of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in general administrative duties, another was a serving police officer in an administrative and non-operational role, and a third was a former police officer who had retired in 2003. None of them had had any involvement in the case.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue was whether the appellant had been tried by an impartial and independent tribunal. Lord Judge said: ‘it would be inconsistent with the current legislative arrangements, for every employee of the CPS to be or to be regarded as excused or disqualified from service on a jury in a trial prosecuted by the CPS. In principle the position of an individual employee of the CPS is fact- and employment- specific, rather than subject to an all-embracing embargo.
We therefore address the facts which we have already summarised. The employee of the CPS who served on the jury cannot be described as a temporary employee of the CPS. She had worked full-time for the CPS for no less than nine years . . In our judgment her service was long enough and of sufficient importance to lead to the conclusion that she fell within the ambit of the prohibition identified by Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale in accordance with the principle which we have described. We also note that she was sitting in contravention of the guidance now issued by the CPS.’

Judges:

Lord Judge CJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Crim 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .

Cited by:

CitedKaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.446113

Regina v Craven: CACD 2 Feb 2001

In appropriate cases, a defect in the trial which made that trial unfair, could be remedied on appeal by that court considering all the evidence available to it. It was recognised that this would trespass on the responsibilities of the jury, but if the court considered that, in the light of all the evidence including evidence previously excluded, the verdict was correct, then the court should let the decision stand. The defects in this case were not sufficient to justify the verdict being set aside, and DNA evidence which had been obtained subsequently only confirmed it.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88426

Regina v Henworth: CACD 30 Jan 2001

There is no rule of law to say that a third trial taken as far as a jury decision was an abuse of process. Dicta that that was the case were obiter. The question of whether there was oppression was to be decided on the facts of each case.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2001

Citing:

See AlsoHenworth v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Nov-2004
The claimant had been tried for murder, but had undergone two retrials. On the second he said there was a rule of law that a defendant should not be tried a third time after two juries had failed to agree a conviction. He refused to take any part . .

Cited by:

See AlsoHenworth v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Nov-2004
The claimant had been tried for murder, but had undergone two retrials. On the second he said there was a rule of law that a defendant should not be tried a third time after two juries had failed to agree a conviction. He refused to take any part . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88500

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 prisoner. The report iindicated that he might still be a risk if released on licence.
Held: He could not make use of the right to make representations if he was not told of the allegations against him. Natural justice required that he be given the information.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992, [1992] QB 740, [1992] 2 WLR 707

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
AdoptedRegina 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’, . .
CitedRoberts 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: . .
ApprovedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) QBD 29-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary’s powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral . .
CitedBrooke and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Parole Board and Another CA 1-Feb-2008
The claimant prisoner complained that the Parole Board was insufficiently independent of government to provide a fair hearing. The court at first instance had found that the relationship between the Parole Board and the sponsoring Department put the . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87525

Jones and Another v Welsh Rugby Football Union: QBD 6 Mar 1997

A professional sportsman should be allowed to have representation on a suspension hearing, which might affect his ability to earn his living. However Ebsworth J doubted the correctness of the intrusion of courts into such matters, saying that:’There is . . an air of unreality about a court sitting down to decide whether a player would have made a difference between his team winning or losing a particular match or whether or not he would have been selected for a particular game. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, for a court to calculate the cause of any demotion of a club if there were a suspension and whether and if so what loss flowed from that’.

Judges:

Ebsworth J

Citations:

Times 06-Mar-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At EATJones and Another v Welsh Rugby Football Union; Same v Pugh (For and On Behalf of Welsh RFU) CA 19-Dec-1997
Disciplinary proceedings against a sportsman which had been set aside for him having received an unfair hearing, may be re-instated once the defects in the procedure were remedied. . .
CitedSankofa and Another v The Football Association Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2007
The claimant sought an injunction to order the defendant football association from preventing him playing on a football match. He had been sent off and was subject to an automatic additional one match ban. He sought to exercise a right under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Employment

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82591

Irvani v Irvani: CA 10 Feb 2000

An arbitration award should be refused where a party could show that he had not been allowed to present his case properly. The claimant had acted as a litigant in person. The judge hearing the appeal had refused to hear certain aspects of the case, but those aspects revealed cases coming under the heading of making the party ‘unable to present his case’. Some of the findings suggested that she had taken into account matters not disclosed to the applicant.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-2000

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 103(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Natural Justice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82428

Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others (No 8): CA 30 Apr 1993

It was suggested that Chadwick J should not continue with the case, having heard previous hearings. He refused to recuse himself. The defendant appealed.
Held: Counsel must use his own and conscientious judgment that there was proper evidence before asking a judge to stand down for apparent bias. Sir Thomas Bingham MR asked the question whether a reasonable and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial was not possible. He continued: ‘Most, if not all, of the cases in which this test has been discussed have been cases of modest dimensions. We know of no case approaching the scale of this where a charge of apparent bias has been made. That makes it the more important to recognise, as we understand to be agreed, that the hypothetical observer is not one who makes his judgment after a brief visit to the court but one who is familiar with the detailed history of the proceedings and with the way in which cases of this kind are tried. We find assistance in observations made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by Mahoney JA in Vakauta v Kelly (1988) 13 NSWLR 502, 513A: ‘In considering the content of the apprehended bias principle the court must look to, inter alia, two things: what are the norms or standards relevant to the kind of case before it; and whether, on the facts, the requirements have been fulfilled.”
. . And ‘In a case such as this, in which interlocutory applications proliferate, it may well be that one side fares more successfully, perhaps much more successfully, than the other. There are a number of possible explanations for this, the most obvious being that the successful party has shown greater judgment, determination and knowledge of the rules than its opponent. Mr Ross-Munro accepted, as we understood, that no inference of apparent bias could be drawn from the fact that most, or all interlocutory applications had been decided against Dr Hashim. We agree. He also disclaimed any attack on the correctness of Chadwick J’s interlocutory decisions. This we find puzzling. It must, we think, be hard to show consistent unfairness in the absence of consistent error.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR

Citations:

Times 08-Jul-1993, Independent 30-Apr-1993, (1993) 5 Admin LR 348

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOtkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Natural Justice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77847

Faramus v Film Artistes’ Association: HL 1964

Parties to a contract may be bound to act in it according to the rules of natural justice.

Judges:

Lord Pearce

Citations:

[1964] AC 925, [1964] 1 All ER 25

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedLee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain CA 1952
Decisions of inferior tribunals, including arbitrators, were reviewable on the basis of general error of law on record for which certiorari might issue. A decision may be reviewable where there was no evidence supporting particular conclusions.

Cited by:

CitedKoeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Employment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228475

Leeson v Council of Medical Education and Registration: 1889

Mere membership of an association by which proceedings are brought does not disqualify a judge from hearing the case, but active involvement in the institution of the particular proceedings does. Here, mere membership of the Medical Defence Union was held not to be sufficient to disqualify.

Citations:

(1889) 43 Ch D 366

Cited by:

CitedMeerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223949

Payne v Lord Harris of Greewich: CA 1981

A prisoner sought a declaration that he was entitled to be given the reasons for refusing him parole so that he could make representations in rebuttal.
Held: The declaration was refused.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘No doubt it is the duty of all those concerned – from the member of the local review committee, to the Parole Board, to the Secretary of State – to act fairly. That is the simple precept which now governs the administrative procedure of all public bodies. But the duty to act fairly cannot be set down in a series of set propositions. Each case depends on its own circumstances.’
Shaw LJ said: ‘In the well-known case of Reg. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, Ex partes Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417, 430, Lord Denning M.R. said: ‘It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply: nor as to their scope and extent. Everything depends on the subject matter . . ‘ In a context in which the public interest may be put at risk by the inopportune release of a prisoner on licence, no constraints or pressures should weigh upon the Parole Board in coming to what must in the end be a decision in which expedience must be an important influence.’
Brightman LJ referred to the same passage from Ex parte Benaim and Khaida and said: ‘The scope and extent of the principles of natural justice depend on the subject matter to which they are sought to be applied.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Shaw LJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 754

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBourgass 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.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.591146

Regina v Oxford City Justices, ex parte Smith: QBD 1982

The defendant had given a positive breath test. The laboratory test showed a urine/alcohol proportion above the prescribed limit. He was warned that proceedings were possible. The summons was issued within the six months’ period prescribed by the Act, but service was delayed for over two years. He objected that any hearing would be contrary to the rules of natural justice and prejudicial.
Held: The delay was inordinate, and due to the police’s non-observance or inefficiency or both; it was both unjustified and unnecessary, and of such length as to be unconscionable. It could not be said that he was not prejudiced thereby, and the justices were not justified in exercising any discretion. Accordingly, prohibition was granted to prohibit them from continuing the hearing.

Judges:

Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

(1982) 75 Cr App R 200

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Chichester Justices ex parte Crowther Admn 14-Oct-1998
The defendant sought judicial review of an order made in 1998 issuing a warrant for his committal for failure to pay a confiscation order made in 1991. He had served 6 years imprisonment, and in default of payment a further 18 months. He was . .
CitedRegina v Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court ex parte Fiona Watts Admn 8-Feb-1999
The defendant sought to have dismissed as an abuse of proces charges against her that as an officer of Customs and Excise prosecuting the now private prosecutor, she had committed various offences.
Held: The magistrate was vested with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Road Traffic, Natural Justice

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.187182

Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome (No 2): HL 24 Feb 1972

Their Lordships varied an order for costs already made by the House in circumstances where the parties had not had a fair opportunity to address argument on the point. As the ultimate court of appeal, the House has power to correct any injustice caused by an earlier order. There is no relevant statutory limitation on the jurisdiction of the House in this regard and therefore its inherent jurisdiction remains unfettered. There is a constitutional right to freedom of expression in England.

Judges:

Lord Kilbrandon

Citations:

[1972] AC 1136

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another CA 24-Mar-1971
. .
See AlsoCassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedReynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Natural Justice, Costs

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183298

Lee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain: CA 1952

Decisions of inferior tribunals, including arbitrators, were reviewable on the basis of general error of law on record for which certiorari might issue. A decision may be reviewable where there was no evidence supporting particular conclusions.
Denning LJ said: ‘The jurisdiction of a domestic tribunal, such as the committee of the Showmen’s Guild, must be founded on a contract, express or implied. Outside the regular courts of this country, no set of men can sit in judgment on their fellows except so far as Parliament authorises it or the parties agree to it.’ and
‘I see no reason why the powers of the court to intervene should be any less in the case of domestic tribunals. In each case it is a question of interpretation. In one of a statute, in the other of the rules, to see whether the Tribunal has observed the law. In the case of statutory tribunals, the injured party has a remedy by certiorari, and also a remedy by declaration and injunction. The remedy by certiorari does not lie to a domestic tribunal but the remedy by declaration and injunction does lie; and it can be as effective as, if not more effective than certiorari. It is, indeed, more effective, because it is not subject to the limitation that the error must appear on the face of the record.’ and
‘The committee cannot extend their jurisdiction by giving a wrong construction to the contract . . no matter how honest they may be. They have only such jurisdiction as the contract on its true interpretation confers on them, not what they think it confers. The scope of their jurisdiction is a matter of the courts.’ and
People have a right, unless expressly or impliedly debarred, to insist for free access to the courts of general jurisdiction of the state: ‘If parties should seek, by agreement, to take the law out of the hands of the courts and put it into the hands of a private tribunal, without any recourse at all to the courts in case of error of law, then the agreement is to that extent contrary to public policy and void.’
Romer LJ said: ‘The proper tribunals for the determination of legal disputes in this country are the courts, and they are the only tribunals which, by training and experience, and assisted by properly qualified advocates, are fitted for the task’

Judges:

Denning LJ, Somervell LJ, Romer LJ

Citations:

[1952] 2 QB 329, [1952] 1 All ER 1175

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedFaramus v Film Artistes’ Association HL 1964
Parties to a contract may be bound to act in it according to the rules of natural justice. . .
CitedKoeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedFoster v McNicol and Another QBD 28-Jul-2016
Incumbent Labour leader did not need nominations
The claimant challenged a decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party to allow its present Leader to stand in the leadership election challenging his position without the need for him to submit first the otherwise standard . .
CitedCharles Stanley and Co Ltd v Adams QBD 19-Jul-2013
The claimant stock broking firm sought to recover its uninsured losses after having paid out for what was said to have been negligent advice by the respondent, a self-employed broker working for them.
Held: The power to recover such losses . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Company, Contract

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.228474

Regina v Board of Visitors ex parte Lewis: 1986

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 130

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.211432

Re Cedac Ltd: CA 1991

The Secretary of State’s notice of intention to bring disqualification proceedings was served and the proceedings begun 10 days later just inside the 2 year limitation period specified by s 7(2) of the Act. Both parties believed the 10 day notice period had been complied with, and the director raised no objection at first. Following Jaymar, he objected to the short service.
Held: The court asked four questions: (1) What is the scope and purpose of the Act of 1986? (2) What is the importance of the 10-day notice requirement in section 16(1)? (3) What is the relation of that requirement to the general object intended to be secured by the Act of 1986? (4) What are the relevant circumstances of the present case? The Act was intended to protect the public, and the requirement was important, but a breach did not create an automatic nullity. The court could make an order without such formal notice, provided the principles of natural justice were followed. (Legatt LJ) ‘The notice here fulfils no such function (i.e. to protect the director): its importance in the proceedings is minimal, and no one has been able to point to any real benefit that the director may derive from it.’ The third question is a balancing exercise with the protection afforded to the director by the provision of the notice period being set against the need to protect the public. As to the fourth, in these circunstances there was no prejudice to the director.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ, Leggatt LJ

Citations:

[1991] Ch 402

Statutes:

Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 7(2) 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRe Jaymar Management Ltd ChD 1990
The 10 day notice period before commencing proceedings had to be calculated exclusive of the day on which the notice was given and the day on which the proceedings were issued. . .

Cited by:

CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Swan and Othes ChD 22-Jul-2003
When commencing proceedings under the Act, the papers were defective. The secretary of state had failed to give appropriate notice, and thus prevented him from making representations as to the allegations. The allegations involved the manipulation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Administrative, Natural Justice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185779

Rustenberg Platinum Mines v Pan American Airways: 1977

A party should be given advance notice of an intention to make serious allegations of wilful misconduct.

Judges:

Ackner J

Citations:

[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 564

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Admn 22-Oct-2008
The claimant was held by the US. He claimed he had been tortured by them, and sought release of dicuments which allow him to present his case. The respondent sought to prevent disclosure using Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.356587

Bradford v McLeod: HCJ 1985

A sheriff passed a comment that he would not grant legal aid to a miner. He was overheard by a solicitor. The solicitor subsequently asked that sheriff to recuse himself on applications for legal aid by miners accused of breach of the peace while picketing during the strike.
Held: The sheriff should have stood by. A reasonable person hearing the sheriff would conclude that he was biased. The disqualification applied whether or not in fact there was any bias.

Judges:

Lord Justice-Clerk Ross

Citations:

1985 SCCR at 379, (1986) Crim LR 690, 1986 SLT 244

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

AppliedLaw v Chartered Institute of Patent Agents 1919
Eve J discussed the test for bias in the members of a council making a decision: ‘If he has a bias which renders him otherwise than an impartial judge he is disqualified from performing his duty. Nay, more (so jealous is the policy of our law of the . .

Cited by:

CitedCheryl Little, (HMA v Anstruther) ScSf 21-Sep-2001
An order was made against a witness for prevarication. The order was challenged on the basis that she had not had a fair trial, not having a hearing before an independent tribunal. The same judge had acted as witness prosecutor and judge and jury. . .
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.181057

Valente v The Queen: 19 Dec 1985

Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Courts — Charter of Rights — Independent tribunal — Provincial Court judge declined jurisdiction on ground Provincial Court (Criminal Division) not an independent tribunal — Whether or not judge of Provincial Court (Criminal Division) an independent tribunal.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Courts — Independent tribunal — Jurisdiction declined on ground Provincial Court (Criminal Division) not an independent tribunal — Whether or not judge of Provincial Court (Criminal Division) an independent tribunal — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(d) — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52(1) — Provincial Courts Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 398 — Public Service Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 418 — Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 419 — Provincial Courts Amendment Act, 1983, 1983 (Ont.), c. 18, s. 1 — Provincial Judges and Masters Statute Law Amendment Act, 1983, 1983 (Ont.), c. 78, s. 2(2) — Courts of Justice Act, 1984, 1984 (Ont.), c. 11.

Judges:

Dickson CJ and Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Le Dain JJ

Citations:

[1985] 2 SCR 673, 52 OR (2d) 779, 1985 CanLII 25 (SCC), 24 DLR (4th) 161, 23 CCC (3d) 193, 49 CR (3d) 97, 64 NR 1, [1985] CarswellOnt 129, [1985] SCJ No 77 (QL), 14 OAC 79, 15 WCB 326, 19 CRR 354, 37 MVR 9

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedMisick and Others v The Queen PC 25-Jun-2015
Turks and Caicos – The appellants, a former Chief Minister and others, faced a trial on charges of corruption. They objected that the Justice set to hear the case had insufficient security of tenure to guarantee independence, and that the same judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Natural Justice, Legal Professions

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.573790

Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly: CA 1978

Megaw LJ set out a definition of ‘bad faith’: ‘I would suggest – that it seems to me that an unfortunate tendency has developed of looseness of language in the respect – that bad faith or, as it is sometimes put, ‘lack of good faith,’ means dishonesty, not necessarily for a financial motive, but still dishonesty. It always involves a grave charge. It must not be treated as pseudonym of honest though mistaken [conclusion], taking into consideration of a factor which in law is irrelevant.’

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1978] 1 WLR

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWebster v Ministry of Justice QBD 23-Oct-2014
The claimant had been convicted at trial, and release after a successful appeal but after considerable time in jail. He now comlained of the judge’s conduct at trial saying that misdirections amounted to bad faith.
Held: The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.550607

Rex v Lee Kun: CCA 1916

Accused must hear and understand the proceedings

A judge, from the moment he embarks upon a trial until he is functus officio that trial, is under a duty to ensure that both the process and substance of the trial is fair, and that both are duly compliant with appropriate principles. Lord Reading CJ said: ‘[t]here must be very exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding with the trial in the absence of the accused’. The presence of an accused person in criminal proceedings means not merely that the defendant may hear the case against him but also that he is shown to understand the proceedings and has the opportunity to make representations
‘The more difficult question arises when an accused foreigner, ignorant of the English language, is defended by counsel and no application is made to the Court for the translation of the evidence. There is no rule of law to be found in the books on the subject, and as a result of inquiry which we have made since the argument, it has become clear that the practice of the Courts in this respect has varied considerably during the last fifty years. It was stated at the bar by counsel for the Crown that the practice has been for the Court not to require the translation of the evidence unless the accused or his counsel applied for it. There is no doubt that this practice has been followed by some judges; whereas other judges have inquired at the outset of the trial whether the accused or his counsel wished the translation to be made, and if the answer was in the negative they have permitted the trial to proceed without having the evidence interpreted to the accused. Again, some judges have always insisted upon the translation except when the accused or his counsel stated that he did not wish it, and other judges have required translation notwithstanding such a statement. The only practice in this respect upon which there has been uniformity is that whenever any desire has been manifested by the accused or his [or her] counsel for the translation it has always been permitted.
We have come to the conclusion that the safer, and therefore the wiser, course, when the foreigner accused is defended by counsel, is that the evidence should be interpreted to him [or her] except when he or counsel on his [or her] behalf expresses a wish to dispense with the translation and the judge thinks fit to permit the omission; the judge should not permit it unless he [or she] is of opinion that because of what has passed before the trial the accused substantially understands the evidence to be given and the case to be made against him [or her] at the trial.
To follow this practice may be inconvenient in some cases and may cause some further expenditure of time; but such a procedure is more in consonance with that scrupulous care of the interests of the accused which has distinguished the administration of justice in our criminal Courts, and therefore it is better to adopt it. No injustice will be caused by permitting the exception above mentioned.’
Lord Reading CJ said: ‘there must be very exceptional circumstances to justify proceeding with the trial in the absence of the accused’.

Judges:

Lord Reading CJ

Citations:

[1916] 1 KB 337, (1916) 11 Cr App R 293

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedStanford v United Kingdom ECHR 11-Apr-1994
A defendant’s difficulty in hearing the case because of a screen erected to protect the identity of witnesses did not vitiate the trial or make it unfair. The right to a fair trial included the right to be present and in a position to follow the . .
CitedRex v Smellie CCA 1919
The defendant was accused of mistreating his eleven year old daughter. He was ordered to sit upon the stairs leading to the dock, out of her sight, in order to avoid her being intimidated.
Held: A judge could, using the courts own powers to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.539115

Livesey v New South Wales Bar Association: 20 May 1983

High Court of Australia – Courts and Judges – Bias – Prejudgment of issues and of credibility of witness – Refusal to withdraw.
The defendant barrister resisted an application to strike his name off the roll. B, at the time a law student and later an applicant for admission to the roll as a barrister, had provided $10,000 as cash surety for S, a defendant in criminal proceedings, who was then granted bail but absconded. The cash surety was duly forfeited. When B applied to be admitted as a barrister, the Admission Board rejected her application on the basis that she knew full well that the $10,000 surety was S’ money and not her own and could not therefore be used as surety. She appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal which heard evidence and concluded that B had not told the truth. Her case was that she had been lent the money by a Ms A and that she had been unaware that Ms A had herself obtained the money with the help of Livesey (S’ barrister) who had then transported the cash from Victoria to Sydney and visited S in jail before Ms A supposedly visited Ms B and offered to lend her the money. In circumstances where both Livesey and Ms A ‘well knew where the money had come from’, Moffitt P found it impossible to believe Ms B did not. When a subsequent application was made to disbar Livesey, he found that both Moffitt P and Reynolds JA were members of the tribunal hearing his case. He applied for them to recuse themselves but they refused and he was struck off the roll.
Held: ‘a fair-minded observer might entertain a reasonable apprehension of bias by reason of prejudgment if a judge sits to hear a case at first instance after he has, in a previous case, expressed clear views either about a question of fact which constitutes a live and sufficient issue in the subsequent case or about the credit of a witness whose evidence is of significance on such a question of fact.’

Judges:

Mason(1), Murphy(1), Brennan(1), Deane(1) and Dawson(1) JJ.

Citations:

(1983) 151 CLR 288, (1983) 47 ALR 45, (1983) 57 ALJR 420

Citing:

ApprovedEx Parte Lewin; In re Ward 1946
(Australia – New South Wales) The court heard an an application for a rule nisi for a writ of statutory prohibition directed to a magistrate in proceedings by a landlord for the recovery of premises. The magistrate had already heard and determined a . .

Cited by:

CitedOtkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.537707

Bahai v Rashidian: CA 1985

The claimant’s solicitor had given evidence in support of the claim and the judge had been very critical of that evidence. The defendant sought an order that the solicitor be jointly liable with his client for the defendant’s costs and the solicitor asked for the application to be heard by a different judge. The judge refused to make that order.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘I accept that it must always be open to a judge to decline to proceed further with the hearing of any matter on the grounds that he is personally embarrassed by, for example, an appearance of bias. Subject to that, I have no doubt that it was the duty of (the trial judge) having heard and determined the issues in the action, himself to determine all applications as to the costs of the action . . the fact that a judge has determined the issues in the action and in doing so has expressed views on the conduct of the parties and of the witnesses, neither constitutes bias nor the appearance of bias in relation to subsequent applications in the action . . If the application can only be sustained by proof of serious misconduct or crime, the standard of proof should be higher than would otherwise be the case, but, subject to that, the application should be dealt with the same way as would any other application for costs against a solicitor.’
Parker LJ dissented as to the particular situation, but agreed as to the principles involved, saying: ‘Save in exceptional circumstances, it will be for the judge, who heard the case . . to determine the matter on a subsequent hearing . . there can be no doubt of this, the judge is dealing with the costs of an action which he has himself heard.’
Balcombe LJ said: ‘I accept that the judge has a discretion to direct that the application be heard by another judge, but the discretion is a judicial one, to be exercised in accordance with settled principles, of which one is undoubtedly that the application should be tried by the judge who heard the action unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary . . A judge properly exercising his judicial function, e.g. by criticising the conduct of a party’s solicitor in the course of his judgment on a matter which he considers relevant to his decision, cannot by that process be said to be biased. Bias is the antithesis of the proper exercise of a judicial function . . If such an application has to be heard by another judge, the procedure will lose its summary character. It will become even more expensive and time consuming than it is already, and the defendants are justified in their contention that the remedy of the party damnified by the solicitor’s misconduct will become illusory’.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, Parker LJ, Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1985] 1 WLR 1337

Cited by:

CitedOtkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.537708

George v Secretary of State for the Environment: CA 1979

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

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Cumming-Bruce LJ

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946

Cited by:

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

Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.470550

P v The General Council of the Bar; Re P (A Barrister): 24 Jan 2005

(Visitors to the Inns of Court) A Disciplinary Tribunal was convened by the President of COIC pursuant to the 2000 Regulations. It found the barrister guilty of misconduct and suspended her from practice for three months. The Visitors appointed to hear the barrister’s appeal included N, who was also a member of the Bar’s Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee. That Committee was responsible for prosecuting allegations of misconduct, although N had not been involved in prosecuting the current case. The appellant barrister objected to N’s participation: ‘Ms N would be a judge in her own cause. This would also be a situation of apparent bias for, although it was accepted that she had taken no part in the particular decision of the PCCC to prosecute the Appellant and that there was no actual bias on her part, there was nevertheless a real apprehension or danger or possibility or suspicion of bias by reason of her membership of the PCCC.’
Held: The objection succeeded. N was obliged to recuse herself both on common law principles and in order to secure compliance with ECHR article 6. The decision was rendered under the doctrine that no one must be a judge in his own cause, rendering it unnecessary to consider whether the doctrine of apparent bias was also an impediment to Ms Nathan’s participation. However, the judgment expressed the firm view that the doctrine of apparent bias did also require Ms Nathan’s recusal.
‘The decision by the PCCC to institute proceedings against a barrister thus imposes upon the PCCC as agent for the Bar Council a duty to prosecute that person and, consistently with the applicable procedure, to present the case against the barrister in a manner designed to procure conviction. Whereas it is undoubtedly true that the proceedings in which the charges are prosecuted must be fairly and justly conducted, those representing the Bar Council have a duty as its agents to procure conviction or in the case of appeals before Visitors to defeat an appeal. They do not have the function of a neutral amicus. Their interest is conviction or dismissal of appeals . .
In considering whether a lay representative on a Visitors Panel shares the interest of the PCCC, of which that person is a member, in the appeal being dismissed, an analysis of the quality of that particular member’s ability to maintain objectivity is nothing to the point. Nobody called in question Lord Hoffmann’s personal ability to be objective and impartial. Nor, in our judgment, does the fact that the purpose of including lay representatives on the PCCC and as members of the Visitors panel, have the effect of insulating such persons from having the appearance of sharing the interest of the PCCC as a prosecutor. Lord Hoffmann’s judicial oath could provide no such insulation. Nor do we find that a lay representative’s non-participation in meetings relating to the prosecution in question, cuts off that person from the responsibility which, as a member of the PCCC, that lay representative bears together with its other members for taking forward and facilitating the prosecution. Lord Hoffmann was not a decision-taker at either Amnesty International or AICL with regard to participation in the proceedings . .
Accordingly, the perception of impartiality is to be based on that which is open to view and not on facts which would be hidden from an outside fair-minded observer.
If therefore one assumes that the scope of the hypothetical fair-minded observer’s knowledge is confined to the Code of Conduct of the Bar, the Disciplinary Tribunal Regulations, the Complaints Rules and the Hearings before the Visitors Rules and does not extend to the methods of selection of the members of the PCCC or, except in so far as they should not have attended the relevant meeting of the PCCC, the Visitors panels or to the attendance records of lay representatives at meetings of the PCCC, we consider that even taking account of the high calibre of lay representatives generally and of their function in representing the public interest, there would be a perception to the fair-minded observer of a real possibility of subconscious lack of impartiality by reason of exposure to influence by such prosecuting policies as might exist amongst PCCC members generally.’

Judges:

Colman J, Clark, Nathan

Citations:

[2005] 1 WLR 3019

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Citing:

CitedDimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL 26-Jun-1852
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .

Cited by:

CitedKaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
CitedOtkritie International Investment Management and Others v Urumov CA 14-Oct-2014
The claimants brought proceedings against several defendants. There had been a series of hearings conducted by a single judge leading to findings that several defendants had been involved in a fraud. The defendants sought recusal of that judge . .
CitedMehey and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Visitors To The Inns of Court and Others CA 16-Dec-2014
The court was asked whether disciplinary proceedings against a number of barristers were invalid on the ground that some of the individuals who heard those proceedings or appeals therefrom were disqualified from sitting.
Held: The appeals . .
CitedMcCarthy, Regina (on The Application of) v The Visitors To The Inns of Court and Another CA 20-Jan-2015
The court was asked whether the decision of the Visitors to the Inns of Court dismissing Mr McCarthy’s appeal from the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal should be quashed with a view to the underlying matter being remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Natural Justice, Human Rights

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.446109

Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Hosenball: CA 1977

A United States’ citizen was subject to a deportation decision which was held not amenable to judicial review on the ground of national security. He appealed.
Held: Neither a failure to lay rules before Parliament within the allotted time, nor disapproval by negative resolution invalidates them. There was a need for common fairness.
The asylum convention has been given a status superior to the Immigration Rules, but they are not law of the status of a statutory instrument but something rather less.
The immigration rules are ‘a practical guide for the immigration officers’, and ‘a curious amalgam of information and description of executive procedures’.
Lord Denning MR allowed that the public interest in confidentiality can be paramount. He said: ‘When the public interest requires that information be kept confidential, it may outweigh even the public interest in the administration of justice’ and ‘The information supplied to the Home Secretary by the Security Service is, and must be, highly confidential. The public interest in the security of the realm is so great that the sources of information must not be disclosed, nor should the nature of the information itself be disclosed, if there is any risk that it would lead to the sources being discovered. The reason is because, in this very secretive field, our enemies might try to eliminate the source of information.’
The Immigration Rules are not law: ‘They are not rules of law. They are rules of practice laid down for the guidance of immigration officers and tribunals who are entrusted with the administration of the Act. They can be, and often are, prayed in aid by applicants before the courts in immigration cases.
When one bears that in mind, there is no right in the applicant to dictate to the Secretary of State which set of Rules should be applied at the time of the decision of a case. The Rules are essentially rules which have to be regarded at the time of a decision.
The argument of Mr Nathan that in effect this is giving retrospective effect to the Rules, and then by analogy to the interpretation of statutes contending that that was not permissible, is, in my view, a mistaken approach. The Rules and their statutory interpretation depend very largely on vested rights. There were no such rights in the present case.’ and ‘they are not rules in the nature of delegated legislation so as to amount to strict rules of law’
Geoffrey Lane LJ said: ‘if Parliament disapproves of the rules they are not thereby abrogated: it merely becomes necessary for the Secretary of State to devise such fresh rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances.’
As to the prevailing of public interest over the need for openness: ‘It may well be that if an alien is told with particularity what it is said he has done it will become quite obvious to him from whence that information has been received. The only person who can judge whether such a result is likely is the person who has in his possession all the information available . . If he comes to the conclusion that for reasons such as those which I have just endeavoured to outline he cannot afford to give the alien more than the general charge against him, there one has the dilemma. The alien certainly has inadequate information upon which to prepare or direct his defence to the various charges which are made against him, and the only way that could be remedied would be to disclose information to him which might probably have an adverse effect on the national security. The choice is regrettably clear: the alien must suffer, if suffering there be, and this is so on whichever basis of argument one chooses.’
What is fair cannot be decided in a vacuum.
Lord Widgery CJ said that the ‘principles of natural justice are those fundamental rules, the breach of which will prevent justice from being seen to be done.’ He went on to describe the maxim as ‘one of the rules generally accepted in the bundle of the rules making up natural justice.’

Judges:

Geoffrey Lane LJ, Cumming-Bruce LJ, Lord Denning MR, Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 766, [1977] 3 All ER 452

Cited by:

CitedSecretary 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 . .
CitedAlvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
CitedRegina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.417813

Bentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry: EAT 1978

In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: ‘We deal with this appeal on the facts of this case. We do not say that in every case any particular form of procedure has to be followed. We accept Miss Slade’s submission that there may be cases in which cross-examination is wholly unnecessary, and that even other methods of achieving natural justice may not be wholly appropriate or required by a situation where an employer is considering an incident which has happened in the course of everyday work. On the other hand it is clear that in a matter of this kind, natural justice does require not merely that a man shall have a chance to state his own case in detail; he must know in one way or another sufficiently what is being said against him. If he does not know sufficiently what is being said against him, he cannot properly put forward his own case. It may be, according to the facts, that what is said against him can be communicated to him in writing, or it may be that it is sufficient if he hears what the other protagonist is saying, or it may be that, in an appropriate case, for matters which have been said by others to be put orally in sufficient detail is an adequate satisfaction of the requirements of natural justice. As Bristow J said, it is all a question of degree. In the present case, the industrial tribunal have found, as is indeed unchallenged, that the employee did not hear Mr Singh; [Mr Singh was the other protagonist in the matter] the employee did not have the written statements of the other witnesses, nor any written statement of Mr Singh; he did not have the chance to cross-examine. It was clear, as Miss Slade has pointed out to us, from the notes of evidence in the course of the hearing, that certain matters were put to the employee.’
. . and ‘The real issue here is who or what had provoked the fight, and we consider that the industrial tribunal are really saying that because the employee did not have these various statements, and did not have the opportunity of listening to Mr Singh or of asking him questions, he really did not have an opportunity of knowing in sufficient detail what was being said against him on the issue which really mattered.’

Judges:

Slynn J

Citations:

[1979] ICR 47, [1978] IRLR 436

Citing:

Approved and RefinedByrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd 1958
The court formulated the principles of natural justice: ‘What then are the requirements of natural justice? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to . .

Cited by:

CitedHussain v Elonex Plc CA 17-Mar-1999
The claimant appealed against a finding that he had not been unfairly dismissed. He said that the procedure adopted had been unfair, since he had not had opportunity to see the statements provided to his employer by independent witnesses of the . .
CitedStrouthos v London Underground Ltd CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant had been dismissed after being accused of taking a staff car to France and having it impounded for suspected importation of cigarettes and alcohol above personal use limits.
Held: ‘It is a basic proposition, whether in criminal or . .
CitedKhanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.347293

Rex v Grady And Curley: 2 Dec 1836

Though he may not, in legal strictness be bound to take down more than is material to prove the felony, yet since the passing of the Prisoner’s Counsel Bill, giving prisoners the right to a copy of the depositions against them, the magistrate ought to return all that was said by the witnesses with respect to the charge, as the object of the Legislature was to enable prisoners to know what they have to answer on their trial.

Judges:

Lord Denman CJ

Citations:

[1836] EngR 1128, (1836) 7 Car and P 650, (1836) 173 ER 284 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Natural Justice, Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.315460

Cooper v The Board of Works For The Wandsworth Destrict: 21 Apr 1863

Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without giving the owner an opportunity of being heard. The Board maintained that their discretion to order demolition was not a judicial discretion and that any appeal should have been to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Held: The claim succeeded. Erie CJ said that the power was subject to a qualification repeatedly recognised that no man is to be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. This rule had been applied to: ‘many exercises of power which in common understanding would not be at all a more judicial proceeding than would be the act of the district board in ordering a house to be pulled down.’
Willes J said that the rule was ‘of universal application and founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’ and ‘I apprehend that a tribunal which is by law invested with power to affect the property of one Her Majesty’s subjects is bound to give such subject an opportunity of being heard before it proceeds, and that rule is of universal application an founded upon the plainest principles of justice.’
Byles J said that ‘although there are no positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature.’

Judges:

Erie CJ, Willes J, Byles J

Citations:

[1863] EngR 424, (1863) 14 CB NS 180, (1863) 143 ER 414

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Metropolis Local Management Act 1855

Cited by:

CitedBank 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 . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedBank 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 . .
CitedOsborn v The Parole Board SC 9-Oct-2013
Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Natural Justice

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.283079

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Aissaoui: Admn 1997

The IAT had remitted an appeal to be heard de novo by another adjudicator. The second adjudicator dismissed the appeal, but recorded that the determination of the first adjudicator had been on file and that he had ‘had the advantage of having perused it’. The applicant sought permission to move for judicial review on the ground that it had been improper for the second adjudicator to have read the determination of his colleague.
Held: The application was dismissed: ‘It is no doubt inevitable that the previous determination will be on the file. It may be inevitable that the adjudicator looks at it. It seems to me that there is no reason in principle why he should not, provided, of course, that he does not allow it in any way to influence the decision that he has to make on a fresh consideration of the whole case. It may be that it would be desirable that steps were taken not to include such a decision in the papers, because that would avoid any question of a suggestion that the adjudicator had been wrongly influenced in any way by it; but that does not seem to me to be in the least essential and adjudicators can surely be trusted to carry out their functions in a proper fashion.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[1997] Imm AR 184

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDritan Gashi v Secretary of State for the Home Department IAT 2001
Referring to the decsision in Aissaoui, the tribunal set out guidelines: ‘(1) As a general rule it is best practice for an adjudicator hearing an appeal de novo not to read the Determination of a previous adjudicator unless expressly invited to do . .
CitedSwash v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 26-Jul-2006
The appellant challenged refusal of the grant of leave to remain in the UK. The court was asked as to the approach to be adopted by the AIT on reconsideration of an appeal when it has concluded that there was an error of law in the original . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Natural Justice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.244737

Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd: 1958

The court formulated the principles of natural justice: ‘What then are the requirements of natural justice? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly, that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not myself think that there is really anything more.’

Judges:

Harman J

Citations:

[1958] 1 WLR 762

Cited by:

CitedKoeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
CitedADT Auctions Ltd v Nayar EAT 7-Apr-1998
The EAT considered a complaint by the dismissed employee that he had not been given the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who had provided statements against him. . .
CitedKhanum v Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority EAT 1979
In a domestic tribunal such as that a disciplinary hearing, all that is required is that the three basic requirements of natural justice be fulfilled; namely (1) that the person should know the nature of the accusation against him or her; (2) that . .
Approved and RefinedBentley Engineering Co Ltd v Mistry EAT 1978
In employment disciplinary proceedings, natural justice required that a man should have a chance to state his own case and to know sufficiently what was being said against him, so that he could put forward his own case properly.
Slynn J said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228472

Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc and Another v Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd and Others: 1989

The court considered the requirements of natural justice in the light of the decision in Gaiman: ‘Nor do I consider my conclusions to be inconsistent with the decision of Megarry J in [Gaiman] because Megarry J held that the principles of natural justice applied unless there were circumstances such as to indicate the contrary.’

Judges:

Webster J

Citations:

[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Reports 570

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGaiman v The National Association for Mental Health ChD 1970
The court considered the articles of an association without share capital but limited by guarantee. One article provided that a member should cease to be a member of the association if he were requested by resolution of the council to resign. It was . .

Cited by:

See AlsoShearson Lehman Hutton v Maclaine Watson (No 2) 1990
When a court orders repayment of a sum, with interest the rate of interest may be the commercial rate, which would normally be 1% above base rate, but is variable on appropriate evidence. . .
CitedKoeller and Another v Coleg Elidyr (Camphill Communities Wales) Ltd CA 12-Jul-2005
The applicants occupied a house as licensees. An order for possession was made against them. The company was a charitable company set up to provide accomodation in communities for handicapped adults. The workers in the communities were not formally . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.228473

Regina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association: 1960

Even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by a bias. Devlin LJ said: ‘Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and did not allow his interest to affect his mind, although, nevertheless, he may have allowed it unconsciously to do so.’

Judges:

Devlin J

Citations:

[1960] 2 QB 167

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Magistrates

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.224056

Williams v Home Office (No 2): 2 Jan 1981

The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to realise that it was in their own interest to improve their behaviour. He complained that he had not had a fair opportnity to challenge the decision to transfer him.
Held: The decision to transfer the plaintiff to the control unit was an administrative and non-punitive decision taken to relieve the prison system. There is a distinction between disciplinary offences and transfers between status in the need for procedures. In relation to prison regimes that whatever the mischief the authorities aimed to prevent or punish, there was an ‘irreducible minimum, judged by contemporary standards of public morality’ below which standards of treatment should not fall. Tudor Evans J said: ‘it is well established that it is inappropriate to grant declarations which are academic and of no practical value. ‘

Judges:

Tudor Evans J

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 1211

Citing:

See AlsoWilliams v Home Office (No 2) 1981
Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . .
CitedMerricks and Another v Nott-Bower CA 1964
The plaintiff police officers had been disciplined by transfer in 1957 as a result of a report by an officer who was subsequently discredited. After their accuser was discredited they sought a declaration that the disciplinary action taken against . .

Cited by:

See AlsoWilliams v Home Office (No 2) 1981
Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223348

Kartinyeri v Commonwealth of Australia: 1998

(Australia) Objection was taken to the participation of a judge in a High Court decision on the constitutionality of a Commonwealth statute, on the basis that the judge, as counsel, had given an opinion on the point. The judge concluded that he should not disqualify himself: ‘I do not think that the expression of an opinion as to a legal matter, whether as a practising lawyer or as a judge on a prior occasion, will ordinarily of itself give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias according to the relevant test. Mason J in the passage I have already quoted [Re JRL; Ex p CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342, 352] points out that the making of a previous decision by a judge on issues of fact and law, although perhaps generating an expectation of a particular outcome, does not mean that the judge will not be impartial and unprejudiced in the relevant sense.’ and ‘Some members of this court have come to it directly from a career in politics and in government. Inevitably, in Cabinet and in the Party room, they must have had a very close association with members of the government whose legislation they have had from time to time to interpret. Sometimes the legislation may be in implementation of long-standing policy to which the former politician has subscribed and has perhaps even advocated. A particular association of itself, and even a current, proper one which observes the punctiliousness required in respect of a case and issues actually before, or which may be before, the court should not ordinarily give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.’ and ‘My position is, I think, quite different from that of a person who, before coming to the bench, has been directly involved in the preparation of legislation that has to be construed by the court, and who has taken active steps as principal law officer of the Commonwealth to seek to ensure the passage of a bill and to propound to the Governor-General the Senate’s failure to pass it as a basis for a double dissolution. These were some of the circumstances that led Murphy J to stand aside in Victoria v Commonwealth and Connor [(1975) 134 CLR 81]. There were other closely related steps taken by his Honour there when he was the Attorney-General concerning that Act.’

Citations:

(1998) 156 ALR 300

Cited by:

CitedDavidson 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Natural Justice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199223

Maharaj v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago: PC 11 Oct 1976

A judge of the High Court had committed the barrister appellant to prison for seven days for contempt in the face of the court. The barrister was granted special leave to appeal to the Board against the committal order.
Held: Allowing the appeal. The judge had, however inadvertently, failed to serve a fundamental rule of natural justice, that a person accused of an offence should be told plainly enough to give him an opportunity to put forward any expkanation or excuse that he may wish to advance: ‘In charging the appellant with contempt, Maharaj J did not make plain to him the particulars of the specific nature of the contempt with which he was charged. This must usually be done before an alleged contemnor can properly be convicted and punished . . In their Lordships’ view, justice certainly demanded that the judge should have done so in this particular case. Their Lordships are satisfied that his failure to explain that the contempt with which he intended to charge the appellant was what the judge has described in hiw written reasons as a ‘vicious attack on the integrity of the Court’ vitiates the committal for contempt.’
Lord Salmon said: ‘Their Lordships recognise how important it is not to waste judicial time. But if this can be avoided only by finding against a party without giving him a fair chance of being heard, then such a price for saving judicial time is far too high.’
Lord Salmon said: ‘No point was taken on the hearing of the petition for special leave that such an appeal does not lie to Her Majesty in Council, nor was any such point taken in the respondent’s case. The point was however raised for the first time as a preliminary objection at the hearing of this appeal. Their Lordships can deal with it quite shortly.
It was conceded on behalf of the respondent that the point would have been unarguable before 1962, since it has long been well settled that it is competent for Her Majesty in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court. Their Lordships consider that the point is equally unarguable now for they can discover nothing in the Trinidad and Tobago Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1962 or the Trinidad and Tobago (Procedure in Appeals to Privy Council) Order in Council 1962 which touches Her Majesty’s power in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court.’

Judges:

Lord Salmon

Citations:

[1977] 1 All ER 411

Citing:

See alsoMaharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
CitedAmbard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago PC 1936
It is competent for Her Majesty in Council to entertain appeals against orders of courts of record overseas imposing penalties for contempt of court. . .
CitedIn The Matter of The Petition Of Edward Hutchinson Pollard v The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Of Hong Kong PC 16-Jun-1868
A contempt of Court being a criminal offence, no person can be punished for such unless the specific offence charged against him be distinctly stated, and an opportunity given him of answering. . .

Cited by:

See alsoMaharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) PC 27-Feb-1978
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant barrister has been convicted of contempt. The Board had previously found the conviction improper because the basis of the complaint had not been made clear to him. The appellant now sought damages for his . .
CitedThe Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Contempt of Court, Natural Justice

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.199437

Johnson v Johnson: 7 Sep 2000

(High Court of Australia) When looking to test whether a member of the public would perceive bias in a court, it is unnecessary to delve into the characteristics to be attributed to the fair-minded and informed observer. One is entitled to conclude that such an observer will adopt a balanced approach. ‘A reasonable member of the public is neither complacent nor unduly sensitive or suspicious.’

Judges:

Kirby J

Citations:

(2000) 201 CLR 488, [2000] 74 ALJR 1380, [2000] 174 ALR 655, [2000] HCA 48

Links:

Austlii

Cited by:

CitedLawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
CitedPD, Regina (on the Application of) v West Midlands and North West Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 22-Oct-2003
The claimant was detained as a mental patient. He complained that a consultant employed by the NHS Trust which detained him, also sat on the panel of the tribunal which heard the review of his detention.
Held: Such proceedings did engage the . .
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
CitedHelow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another HL 22-Oct-2008
The appellant, a Palestinian, challenged the involvement of Lady Cosgrove as a judge in her case, saying that Lady Cosgrove’s involvement as a jew in pro-Jewish lobby organisations meant that there was an appearance of bias. The applicant had sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Commonwealth

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183743

Webb and Hay v The Queen: 30 Jun 1994

(Australia) Criminal Law – Jury – Impartiality – Murder trial – Juror giving flowers to victim’s mother – Whether juror or jury to be discharged Appropriate test – Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of impartiality.
Evidence – Criminal trial – Accomplice inculpating accused – Whether accomplice warning necessary – Nature of warning.
The test of whether a bias was found in a member of court because of personal links is whether such links give rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed member of the public that there might have been such a bias.
As to the test laid down in Gough: ‘In considering the merits of the test to be applied in a case where a juror is alleged to be biased, it is important to keep in mind that the appearance as well as the fact of impartiality is necessary to retain confidence in the administration of justice. Both the parties to the case and the general public must be satisfied that justice has not only been done but that it has been seen to be done. Of the various tests used to determine an allegation of bias, the reasonable apprehension test of bias is by far the most appropriate for protecting the appearance of impartiality. The test of ‘reasonable likelihood’ or ‘real danger’ of bias tends to emphasise the court’s view of the facts. In that context, the trial judge’s acceptance of explanations becomes of primary importance. Those two tests tend to place inadequate emphasis on the public perception of the irregular incident.
We do not think that it is possible to reconcile the decision in Gough with the decisions of this Court. In Gough, the House of Lords specifically rejected the reasonable suspicion test and the cases and judgments which had applied it in favour of a modified version of the reasonable likelihood test. In Watson, faced with the same conflict in the cases between the two tests, this Court preferred the reasonable suspicion or apprehension test. That test has been applied in this Court on no less than eight subsequent occasions. In the light of the decisions of this Court which hold that the reasonable apprehension or suspicion test is the correct test for determining a case of alleged bias against a judge, it is not possible to use the ‘real danger’ test as the general test for bias without rejecting the authority of those decisions.
‘Moreover, nothing in the two speeches in the House of Lords in Gough contains any new insight that makes us think that we should re-examine a principle and a line of cases to which this Court has consistently adhered for the last eighteen years. On the contrary, there is a strong reason why we should continue to prefer the reasoning in our own cases to that of the House of Lords. In Gough, the House of Lords rejected the need to take account of the public perception of an incident which raises an issue of bias except in the case of a pecuniary interest. Behind this reasoning is the assumption that public confidence in the administration of justice will be maintained because the public will accept the conclusions of the judge. But the premise on which the decisions in this Court are based is that public confidence in the administration of justice is more likely to be maintained if the Court adopts a test that reflects the reaction of the ordinary reasonable member of the public to the irregularity in question. References to the reasonable apprehension of the ‘lay observer’, the ‘fair-minded observer’, the ‘fair-minded, informed lay observer’, ‘fair-minded people’, the ‘reasonable or fair-minded observer’, the ‘parties or the public’, and the `reasonable person’ abound in the decisions of this Court and other courts in this country. They indicate that it is the court’s view of the public’s view, not the court’s own view, which is determinative. If public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained, the approach that is taken by fair-minded and informed members of the public cannot be ignored. Indeed, as Toohey J. pointed out in Vakauta (1989) 167 CLR. at p.585 in considering whether an allegation of bias on the part of a judge has been made out, the public perception of the judiciary is not advanced by attributing to a fair-minded member of the public a knowledge of the law and the judicial process which ordinary experience suggests is not the case. That does not mean that the trial judge’s opinions and findings are irrelevant. The fair-minded and informed observer would place great weight on the judge’s view of the facts. Indeed, in many cases the fair-minded observer would be bound to evaluate the incident in terms of the judge’s findings.’

Judges:

Mason CJ and McHugh J

Citations:

(1994) 181 CLR 41, (1994) 122 ALR 41, (1994) 68 ALJR 582

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

CitedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
CitedRegina v Prime CACD 1973
Widgery LCJ said: ‘It is important in all criminal cases that the judge should on the first occasion when the jury separate warn them not to talk about the case to anybody who is not one of their number.’ . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Natural Justice, Evidence

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183297

Atkinson v Government of the United States: HL 1969

The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.
Lord Reid said: ‘It is now well recognised that the court has power to expand procedure laid down by statute if that is necessary to prevent infringement of natural justice and is not plainly contrary to the intention of Parliament. There can be cases where it would clearly be contrary to natural justice to surrender a man although there is sufficient evidence to justify committal. Extradition may be either because the man is accused of an extradition crime or because he has been convicted in the foreign country of an extradition crime. It is not unknown for convictions to be obtained in a few foreign countries by improper means, and it would be intolerable if a man so convicted had to be surrendered. Parliament can never have so intended when the Act of 1980 was passed. But the Act does provide a safeguard. The Secretary of State always has power to refuse to surrender a man committed to prison by the magistrate. It appears to me that Parliament must have intended the Secretary of State to use that power whenever in his view it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to surrender the man.’
Lord Upjohn said: ‘Of course, in a most literal sense, in making an order of committal the magistrates are making a judicial order or determination; it is a judicial proceeding and it is an order or determination in the sense that in the result the accused then stands his trial . . But here there is no judicial determination of the rights of the parties in that sense; no ‘rights’ are decided. All that the committing magistrates have ‘decided’ or ‘determined’ is that there is prima facie case which should go before the adjudicating tribunal; they are acting judicially but they are not truly an adjudicating body at this stage, they are merely carrying out a step in the complex of proceedings which by our law precedes the trial of an indictable offence.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1971] AC 197, [1969] 3 All ER 1317

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
AppliedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
AppliedStreames v Copping 1985
The court considered the power to require magistrates to state a case on an interloctory issue.
Held: Where the Justices had not made a final determination they had no jurisdiction to state a case. Section 111 applies only to a final . .
CitedDonnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Admn 27-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed refusal of the district judge to state a case on the basis of having no jurisdiction.
Held: Where the magistrate is acting not as an Examining Magistrate, but is deciding a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, his . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Natural Justice, Magistrates

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180562

Board of Education v Rice: HL 6 Apr 1911

A local education authority refused to pay salaries to teachers in a non-provided school at the same rate as it paid the teachers in provided schools. The managers of the non-provided school complained, and the Board of Education directed an inquiry, the result of which was a report that the local education authority had failed to maintain the school and keep it efficient. The ‘questions’ required by s. 7, sub-s. 3, to be determined by the Board of Education were: ‘(1.) Whether the local education authority have in fixing and paying the salaries of the teachers fulfilled their duty under s. 7, sub-s. 1, of the Act ; (2.) whether the salaries inserted in the teachers’ present agreements are reasonable in amount and ought to be paid by the authority, or what salaries the authority ought to pay.’ The Board purported to give its decision in a document which failed to deal with the matters in issue.
Held: Inasmuch as the Board had not determined the questions, the decision must be quashed by certiorari, and a mandamus must issue commanding the Board to determine the questions. The right of a local education authority to differentiate between schools in regard to the scale of salaries or the standard of efficiency, in the absence of special circumstances appropriate to the differentiation, discussed.
The Board’s decision was quashed and an order of mandamus issued.
Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘The board is in the nature of the arbitral tribunal, and a court of law has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the determination either upon law or upon fact. But if the court is satisfied either that the board have not acted judicially in the way I have described, or have not determined the question which they are required by the Act to determine, then there is a remedy by mandamus and certiorari.’
‘In such cases the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon every one who decides anything . .
They can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view.’
It should act judicially.

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC

Citations:

[1911] AC 179, [1911-13] All ER 36, 104 LT 689, 80 LJKB 796

Links:

Commonlii

Statutes:

Education Act 1902 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHenshall v General Medical Council and others CA 13-Dec-2005
The claimant had lodged a complaint against a medical practitioner. The preliminary proceedings committee had accepted evidence from the doctor, but had not given the complainant opportunity to see it and comment upon it.
Held: the rules must . .
CitedRegina v Camden LBC ex parte Paddock 1992
Sedley LJ articulated the principle adumbrated by Lord Loreburn LC in Board of Education v Rice: ‘ . . that a decision-making body should not see relevant material without giving those affected a chance to comment on it and, if they wish, to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Education

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.237840

Ridge v Baldwin (No 1): HL 14 Mar 1963

No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence

Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed without being given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his behaviour. He now accepted that he should leave, but sought to be allowed to resign rather than be dismissed, thus preserving his pension rights.
Held: There should be no order to reinstate the Chief Constable as if he had never been validly dismissed. The House found value in the distinction between administrative and judicial decisions as a factor in the susceptibility of a decision to judicial review. The House considered its ability to look to decisions of non-statutory tribunals and was asked as whether an order for specific performance of a contract of employment was possible at common law: ‘There cannot be specific performance of a contract of service, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or none.’
As to the nature of natural Justice: ‘In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured therefore it does not exist’.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said: ‘It is well established that the essential requirements of natural justice at least include that before someone is condemned he is to have an opportunity of defending himself, and in order that he may do so that he is to be made aware of the charges or allegations or suggestions which he has to meet: Kanda v Government of Malaya. My Lords, here is something which is basic to our system: the importance of upholding it far transcends the significance of any particular case.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1964] AC 40, [1963] UKHL 2, [1963] UKHL 2, (1963) 61 LGR 369

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Municipal Corporations Act 1882 191(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKanda 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 . .
CitedRex v Mayor of Stratford 1670
The Corporation dismissed a Town Clerk who held office durante bene placito.
Held: As the person having the power of dismissal need not have anything against the officer, he need not give any reason. . .
DoubtedThe Queen On The Prosecution Of Wray v The Governors Of The Darlington Free Grammar School 27-Nov-1844
. .
CitedDean v Bennett ChD 22-Dec-1870
By the deed of settlement of a Baptist chapel, it was provided that every minister should be liable to be forthwith removed by the decision of the church made at one meeting, and confirmed at a second meeting called by a notice which should . .
CitedTerrell v Secretary of State for the Colonies 1953
A judge of the Supreme Court of Malaya had been appointed in 1930 on the understanding that the retiring age should be sixty-two. When Malaya was overrun by the Japanese in 1942 he was retired on a pension, some time before he had reached sixty-two, . .
CitedWillis v Childe 14-Jan-1851
Injunction granted to restrain trustees of a grammar school removing the master. . .
CitedBaggs Case 1675
. .
CitedThe King v G Gaskin, D D 17-Apr-1799
A return (to a mandamus to restore) insufficient, because it did not state that the party had been summoned to answer to the charge before he was removed, . .
CitedWillis v Childe 14-Jan-1851
Injunction granted to restrain trustees of a grammar school removing the master. . .
CitedEx Parte Ramshay Esq 1852
The Lord Chancellor was empowered if he should think fit to remove a county court judge from his office on the ground of inability or misbehaviour, but Lord Campbell CJ said that this was ‘ only on the implied condition prescribed by the principles . .
CitedOsgood v Nelson HL 1872
The officer in question was an officer of the Corporation of the City of London, and he had been charged in general terms with neglect in the performance of his duty as Registrar of the Sheriffs’ Court. There was statutory power for the Corporation . .
CitedHogg v Scott KBD 1947
A police officer complained as to his dismissal without a hearing
Held: A Chief Constable could dismiss without hearing him an officer who had been convicted of felony.
Statutory limitation periods are not directly applicable to . .
CitedCooper v Wilson 1937
Police officers can be removed from office only by a valid exercise of the statutory power of dismissal. The principles of natural justice applied in the dismissal. . .
CitedFisher v Jackson ChD 7-Mar-1891
The deed of trust establishing an endowed school provided that the master of the school should he appointed by the vicars of three specified parishes, and power was given to the three vicars to remove the master for certain specified causes. The . .
CitedCooper v Wandsworth Board of Works CCP 21-Apr-1863
A house owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board they had under an Act of 1855 authority to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. This action was brought against the Board because they had used that power . .
CitedJames Dunbar Smith v The Queen PC 12-Mar-1878
(Queensland) This was an action of ejectment on the alleged forfeiture of a Crown lease in Queensland. The Governor was entitled to forfeit the lease if it had been proved to the satisfaction of a Commissioner that the lessee had abandoned or ceased . .
CitedHopkins and Another v Smethwick Local Board of Health CA 1890
Willes J said: ‘In condemning a man to have his house pulled down, a judicial act is as much implied as in fining him pounds 5 ; and as the local board is the only tribunal that can make such an order its act must be a judicial act, and the party to . .
CitedWood v Woad CEC 1-Jun-1874
Declaration, alleging that the plaintiff was a member of a mutual insurance society, which insured members against losses to ships entered and insured in the books of the society, on a deposit being made of 5l. per cent, on the amount insured ; that . .
CitedFisher v Keane ChD 2-Dec-1878
The committee of a club, being a quasi-judicial tribunal, are bound, in proceeding under their rules against a member of the club for alleged misconduct, to act according to the ordinary principles of justice, and are not to convict him of an . .
CitedDawkins v Antrobus CA 1-Feb-1881
The Court will not interfere against the decision of the members of a club professing to act under their rules, unless it can be shewn either that the rules are contrary to natural justice, or that what has been done is contrary to the rules, or . .
CitedWeinberger v Inglis and Others HL 1919
A member of enemy birth was excluded from the Stock Exchange, and it was held that the Committee had heard him before acting.
Held: The power to admit persons to membership was held to be both an administrative power and a fiduciary power. The . .
CitedSpackman v Plumstead District Board of Works 1885
The certificate of the superintending architect of the metropolitan board of works made under Metropolis Management (Amendment) Act 1862 section 75 and fixing the general line of buildings in a road was conclusive as to a building erected before the . .
CitedLapointe v L’ Association De Bienfaisance Et Retraite De La Police De Montreal PC 27-Jul-1906
(Quebec) The appellant, who was a member of the respondent benevolent and pension society, had been obliged to resign from the police force. Under those circumstances he became entitled according to the rules to have his case for a gratuity or . .
CitedDe Verteuil v The Hon Samuel William Knaggs Acting Governor and Another PC 21-Mar-1918
(Trinidad and Tobago) the Governor of Trinidad was entitled to remove immigrants from an estate ‘on sufficient ground shewn to his satisfaction ‘.
Held: Lord Parmoor said that ‘the acting Governor was not called upon to give a decision on an . .
CitedEx Parte Ramshay Esq 1852
The Lord Chancellor was empowered if he should think fit to remove a county court judge from his office on the ground of inability or misbehaviour, but Lord Campbell CJ said that this was ‘ only on the implied condition prescribed by the principles . .
CitedRex v Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co (1920) Ltd CA 1923
The Commissioners had a statutory duty to make schemes with regard to electricity districts and to hold local enquiries before making them. They made a draft scheme which in effect allocated duties to one body which the Act required should be . .
CitedRex v Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly 1928
It was sought to prohibit the Assembly from proceeding further with the Prayer Book Measure, 1927. I think that the Church Assembly has no such power, and therefore no such duty.’
Held: In order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to review a . .
CitedAnnamunthodo v Oilfields Workers’ Trade Union PC 26-Jul-1961
The plaintiff complained that he had been wrongly expelled by the general council of his union. The union replied that any defect had been cured when his expulsion was confirmed by the Union’s Annual Conference.
Held: The decision of the . .
CitedBlisset v Daniel 1853
The court considered the limits on a power of expulsion from a partnership.
Held: (Page-Wood V-C) Construing the articles, two-thirds of the partners could expel a partner by serving a notice upon him without holding any meeting or giving any . .
CitedAndrews v Mitchell HL 16-May-1904
Sect. 68 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, which enacts that every dispute between a member of a friendly society and the society shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of the society, and that the decision so given shall be binding and . .
CitedRex 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 . .
CitedRex v Neal CCA 1949
‘If some irregularity comes to the knowledge of Counsel before the verdict is returned, he should bring it to the attention of the court at the earliest possible moment so that the presiding judge may consider whether or not to discharge the jury . .
CitedBarnard v National Dock Labour Board CA 31-Mar-1953
The appellant sought a declaration that the employer had imposed disciplinary measures improperly, in that they had been put in place by a port manager who possessed no relevant disciplinary powers.
Held: The delegation by the London Dock . .
CitedCapel v Child 1832
A bishop issued a requisition under statute, requiring the Vicar of W to nominate a Curate with a stipend, on the ground that it appeared to the bishop, of his own knowledge, that the ecclesiastical duties of the vicarage and parish church of W were . .
CitedRex v North; Ex parte Oakey CA 1927
Proceedings in the Consistory Court were found to be: ‘without jurisdiction’ and prohibition lay.
Scrutton LJ said: ‘In my view an order that anyone shall pay the cost of restoring work which has been obliterated without a faculty is in the . .
CitedRussell v Duke of Norfolk CA 1949
Tucker LJ said: ‘There are . . no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the . .

Cited by:

CitedKirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd HL 1992
A public authority is not required as a rule to give a cross undertaking in damages in a law enforcement action. As to the legal status of the statutory instrument in question, the courts could ‘declare it to be invalid’ if satisfied that the . .
CitedDurayappah v Fernando PC 1967
An order had been made by a minister that the council of a local authority be dissolved. The council did not seek to challenge the order, but the appellant, the mayor, brought proceedings in his individual capacity to challenge the minister’s . .
CitedPercy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission HL 15-Dec-2005
The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v MB; Same v AF HL 31-Oct-2007
Non-derogating control orders – HR Compliant
MB and AF challenged non-derogating control orders made under the 2005 Act, saying that they were incompatible with their human rights. AF was subject to a curfew of 14 hours a day, wore an electronic tag at all times, could not leave a nine square . .
CitedShoesmith, 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 . .
CitedSchmidt and Another v Secretary of State for Home Affairs CA 19-Dec-1968
The plaintiffs had come to England to study at a college run by the Church of Scientology, and now complained that their student visas had not been extended so as to allow them to complete their studies. They said that the decision had been made for . .
CitedMackaill and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission Admn 6-Oct-2014
The three claimants were police officers. They met a senior MP at Sutton Coldfield. They emerged from the meeting and were said to have made misleading statements as to the content of the meeting. The IPCC referred the matters back to local forces . .
CitedRegina v The Secretary of State for the Environment, ex Parte Ostler CA 16-Mar-1976
Statutory Challenge must be timely
The applicant had not taken objection to a proposed road scheme believing wrongly that it would not affect his business. Other objectors had withdrawn because of secret re-assurances given to them by the respondent.
Held: The court was asked, . .
CitedGilham v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Oct-2019
The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Natural Justice, Administrative, Police, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.187070

Ball v Secretary of Satte for the Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 27 Jan 2000

The applicant had appealed against an enforcement notice saying that the four year rule applied. The inspector issued his decision after the expiry of a time limit, but after the applicant had requested a further short period in which to make representations. It was held to be unfair to have proceeded without allowing more than a week for representations. B had suffered substantial prejudice for the failure to allow him to make such representations, and the decision was set aside.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Natural Justice, Administrative

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.78119

Seer Technologies Ltd and another v Abbas and another: ChD 17 Feb 2000

The judge having reserved to himself an enquiry as to damages, the party applied ex parte to another judge to allow the case to be taken out of the judge’s list on the grounds that he was Jewish, and had shown himself to be biased in earlier court hearings. The application was refused since it was inconceivable that a proper objection could be based on the religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age, class or sexual orientation of the judge.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Natural Justice

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.89159

Regina v Craven: CACD 12 Apr 2001

In appropriate cases, a defect in the trial which made that trial unfair, could be remedied on appeal by that court considering all the evidence available to it. It was recognised that this would trespass on the responsibilities of the jury, but if the court considered that, in the light of all the evidence including evidence previously excluded, the verdict was correct, then the court should let the decision stand. The defects in this case were not sufficient to justify the verdict being set aside, and DNA evidence which had been obtained subsequently only confirmed it.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88427

Regina v RAF General Court-Martial and Another, ex parte Wright: QBD 1 Jul 1999

It is not an abuse of process for the same officer to make recommendations to higher officers on whether charges should be referred to higher authority or dismissed, and also eventually to make the actual decision on whether a prosecution should proceed. The dual role of such officers did not offend against natural justice.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1999

Natural Justice, Armed Forces, Criminal Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85451

Regina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child): QBD 24 Sep 1999

The school investigated allegations of theft and expelled the child. The independent appela panel rejected the appeal. The child’s parents sought a judicial review because of the way the investigation had been handled.
Held: A school enquiring into allegations of dishonesty by a pupil and which lead to the child’s expulsion, had a duty to conduct such an enquiry with a high standard of fairness. The child should have been interviewed alone. Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to judge such actions by reference to the principles or rules which would apply to a police investigation under PACE. The allegations had been investigated and the conclusions drawn could be justified on the facts ascertained.

Judges:

Nigel Pleming QC

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Governors of Dunraven School Ex Parte B CA 21-Dec-1999
Three pupils were excluded after a finding of theft. On appeal the second child to be heard was not told what had been said by the first to be heard. The first was allowed back into the school, but not the applicant.
Held: The Act showed that . .
From LeaveRegina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) Admn 24-May-1999
Application for leave to bring judicial review. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Governors of Dunraven School Ex Parte B CA 21-Dec-1999
Three pupils were excluded after a finding of theft. On appeal the second child to be heard was not told what had been said by the first to be heard. The first was allowed back into the school, but not the applicant.
Held: The Act showed that . .
Full HearingRegina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) Admn 24-May-1999
Application for leave to bring judicial review. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Education

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85287

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland; similar: QBD 12 Oct 2000

The practice of withholding the reasons for a decision until the day of an appeal which had come to be adopted was unfair and bad administration. The Tribunal should give proper reasons for its decision, together with the gist of any evidence which they had taken into account in coming to that decision. Such a system had caused unnecessary expense, and caused litigation rather than prevented it.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-2000, [2001] ACD 76

Cited by:

CitedRegina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Admn 31-Aug-2001
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Personal Injury, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85208

Regina v Chief Constable of Merseyside, Ex Parte Bennion: QBD 18 Jul 2000

A senior officer had begun a claim against the police officer alleging sex discrimination. She complained that when disciplinary proceedings were commenced against her, the person making the decision would be the Chief Constable, and that his decision there would affect the other proceedings. Even though the Chief Constable had come into post after the events giving rise to the claim, he was being sued in a sufficiently personal capacity to make it a breach of natural justice to hear the disciplinary proceedings.

Citations:

Times 18-Jul-2000, Gazette 27-Jul-2000

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, ex parte Carol Ann Bennion CA 4-May-2001
The claimant sought a judicial review against a Chief Constable against whose force she had made complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation, not to remit disciplinary proceedings against her under regulation 14 of the 1985 Regulations to . .
CitedHeath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Employment, Police

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85181

Mahomed and Another v Morris and Others: CA 17 Feb 2000

An application for leave to appeal was refused on a paper hearing by one judge, but later allowed after oral argument before a different judge. There was no rule which suggested that the first judge should recuse himself from acting on the full appeal. The Practice Direction specifically anticipated such situations. In practice the Lord Justice refusing the appeal on paper should take part in any subsequent oral application.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Feb-2000, Times 01-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83316

Regina v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex Parte Walsh: CA 14 May 1984

A district nursing officer had been dismissed for misconduct. He applied for judicial review. He sought judicial review to quash the decision on the ground that there had been a breach of natural justice and that the district nursing officer had no power to dismiss him.
Held: A claim for judicial review cannot be used to enforce merely private law rights against a public body. An applicant for judicial review has to show that a public law right enjoyed by him had been infringed and that where the terms of employment by a public body were controlled by statute its employees might have rights both in public and private law to enforce those rights, but that a distinction had to be made between an infringement of statutory provisions giving rise to public law rights and those that arose solely from a breach of the contract of employment.
Purchas LJ described the basic question as being whether the remedies sought by the applicant arose solely out of a private right in contract between him and the authority or upon some breach of the public duty placed upon that authority which related to the exercise of the powers granted by statute to it to engage and dismiss him in the course of providing a national service to the public.
Discussing the case law cited to him, Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘None of these three decisions of the House of Lords . . was directly concerned with the scope of judicial review under RSC, Ord 53 . . In all three cases there was a special statutory provision bearing directly upon the right of a public authority to dismiss the plaintiff . . As Lord Wilberforce said [in Malloch, at pages 1595-1596], it is the existence of these statutory provisions which injects the element of public law necessary in this context to attract the remedies of administrative law. Employment by a public authority does not per se inject any element of public law. Nor does the fact that the employee is in a ‘higher grade’ or is an ‘officer’. This only makes it more likely that there will be necessary statutory restrictions upon dismissal, or other underpinning of his employment . . It will be this underpinning and not the seniority which injects the element of public law.’
May LJ referred to ‘ordinary’ master and servant cases with no element of public law involved and considered that earlier decisions ‘must now be read in the light of the employment protection legislation’: ‘The concept of natural justice involved in many of the cases is clearly now subsumed in that of an ‘unfair dismissal’. To the extent that such cases laid down any principle of law, then of course they must be followed. As always, however, to the extent that they were really decided upon their own facts they provide no precedent for later cases.
Further, I think that at the present time in at least the great majority of cases involving disputes about the dismissal of an employee by his employer, the most appropriate forum for their resolution is an industrial tribunal. In my opinion the courts should not be astute to hold that any particular dispute is appropriate for consideration under the judicial review procedure . . ‘

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, May, Purchas LJJ

Citations:

[1984] EWCA Civ 6, [1985] QB 152

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedVine v National Dock Labour Board HL 1957
The plaintiff was employed under a statutory scheme for the employment of dock labourers. He appealed against a finding that the rules on dismissal contained within the scheme were not the only ones appertaining.
Held: (reversing the majority . .

Cited by:

CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
CitedShoesmith, 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 . .
CitedRegina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Judicial Review, Natural Justice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.258752

Almazeedi v Penner and Another: PC 26 Feb 2018

Cayman Islands – challenge to the independence of a judge sitting in the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. The challenge is made solely on the ground of an alleged lack of independence due to ‘apparent bias’, that is on the basis that the ‘fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased’

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2018] UKPC 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Natural Justice

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605689

Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others: Admn 19 Jun 2015

The claimant company challenged the involvement of a constituency MP in a campaign opposing the grant of a planning permissions (in this case for a wind farm). In particular the claimant complained of the failures by the respondent to disclose copies of correspondence it had received from the MP when making its decision.

Judges:

Cranston J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1743 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFox Land and Property Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government CA 3-Mar-2015
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had rejected a recommendation of a planning inspector that planning permission should be granted for residential development on green belt land.
Held: The appeal failed. Green belt . .
CitedWind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
CitedBarnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others CA 18-Feb-2014
Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act requires a decision-maker to give ‘the desirability of preserving the building or its setting’ not merely careful consideration but considerable importance and weight when balancing the advantages of the proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Planning, Natural Justice

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.549257

Badica and Kardiam v Council: ECFI 20 Jul 2017

(Judgment) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities with regard to the situation in the Central African Republic – Freezing of funds – Initial registration decision – List of persons and entities to which the freeze applies Funds and economic resources – Inclusion of the names of the applicants – Implementation of a UN resolution – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defense – Presumption of innocence – Manifest error of assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:532, [2017] EUECJ T-619/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International, Natural Justice

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.590466

Financial Conduct Authority v Macris: SC 22 Mar 2017

The claimant had complained that the appellant Authority had made public a penalty imposed on a former employer but implicating him without he being first given an opportunity to make representations.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 19, [2017] Bus LR 64, [2017] 1 WLR 1095, UKSC 2015/0143

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video

Statutes:

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At UTTCMacris v The Financial Conduct Authority UTTC 10-Apr-2014
FINANCIAL SERVICES – preliminary hearing – third party rights – s 393 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – whether applicant identified in notice – yes . .
At CAThe Financial Conduct Authority v Macris CA 19-May-2015
Appeal by the Authority against a decision by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) deciding, as a preliminary issue determined in accordance with Rule 5(3)(e) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, that the respondent to . .
Citedin re Pergamon Press Ltd CA 1971
The court was asked as to the duties of inspectors appointed under the 1948 Act. Sachs LJ said: ‘The inspectors’ function is in essence to conduct an investigation designed to discover whether there are facts which may result in others taking . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Natural Justice

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.581026

Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council: ECFI 17 Feb 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds – Plea of illegality – Legal basis – Misuse of powers – Rights of the defence – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty – Ne bis in idem – Res judicata – Proportionality – Manifest error of assessment – Fundamental rights

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:102, [2017] EUECJ T-14/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

International, Natural Justice

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.575267

Broughton Brickwork Ltd v F Parkinson Ltd: TCC 21 Oct 2014

‘application for summary judgment to enforce a decision of an adjudicator, Mr Paul Greenwood, made on 4th September 2014, in which he decided that the defendant should pay the claimant andpound;96,000 odd including interest. The defendant’s case is that there should be no enforcement of that decision because there was a real and a serious breach of natural justice. In short, it is submitted by the defendant’s counsel, Miss Day QC, that this is a case where something has genuinely gone seriously wrong, and where what has occurred was not rough justice, which she accepts cannot prevent a decision being enforced, but no justice at all. The defendant’s first specific complaint is that the adjudicator decided a particular point which was of considerable importance to the determination of the dispute on a basis which was not the way in which the parties had argued it, and without first giving the parties the opportunity to comment. Its second complaint is that in deciding that point the adjudicator failed, through inadvertence, to address a particular document which the defendant had placed before him and which, had he considered it, would have led to his reaching a different conclusion in the defendant’s favour, as indeed says the defendant the adjudicator has subsequently acknowledged.’

Stephen Davies HHJ
[2014] EWHC 4525 (TCC)
Bailii

Arbitration, Natural Justice

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569070

Osborn v The Parole Board: SC 9 Oct 2013

Three prisoners raised questions as to the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold an oral hearing before making an adverse decision. One of the appeals (Osborn) concerned a determinate sentence prisoner who was released on licence but then recalled to custody. The other appeals (Booth and Reilly) were indeterminate sentence prisoners who have served their minimum terms.
Held: The appeals were allowed and a declaration given that the board breached its duty of procedural fairness to the appellant by failing to offer him an oral hearing, and was accordingly in breach of article 5(4) of the Convention.
The prisoners should have been given oral hearings. To comply with common law fairness requirements, an oral hearing should be provided whenever required by the importance of the issue or the particular facts. The circumstances requiring such a hearing cannot be defined. Such a system would satisfy the Human Rights requirements also. When a paper hearig takes place, the result is provisional, and an oral hearing is not an appeal.
Human Rights law is not a distinct area of law, but should be seen to permeat out legal system.
‘Whether a prisoner’s right to a fair hearing requires the holding of an oral hearing does not depend on his establishing that his application for release or transfer stands any particular chance of success: that approach would not allow for the possibility that an oral hearing may be necessary in order for the prisoner to have a fair opportunity of establishing his prospects of success, and thus involves circular reasoning.’
The court considered the rationale of procedural fairness at common law, and emphasised both the instrumental value of enabling persons to participate in decision-making when they may be able to contribute relevant information or to test other information before the decision-maker, and the ethical value of allowing persons to participate in decision-making which concerns them and is liable to have a significant effect on their rights or interests, where they may have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Reed
[2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 WLR 1020, [2014] HRLR 1, [2013] WLR(D) 374, [2014] 1 All ER 369, UKSC 2011/0147
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Parole Board Rules 2004, Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2009, Parole Board Rules 2011, Criminal Justice Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWaite v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The claimant had been sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure when a youth. After release on licence, the Parole Board met and revoked that licence without an oral hearing, and in contravention of the rules. He did not dispute the facts . .
CitedRegina 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: . .
At first instanceOsborn v The Parole Board Admn 19-Mar-2010
The claimants complained that decisions had been made by the respondents without them having been first given a right to an oral hearing. They now sought permission to bring judicial review.
Held: Permission was refused. The facts in the . .
Appeal fromOsborn and Another v The Parole Board CA 15-Dec-2010
The three claimants complained that the respondent had made decisions adverse to them as to their release to or recall from parole.
Held: Review was refused. While there was ‘some force in the submission that, contrary to the understanding of . .
At First InstanceReilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Apr-2010
The claimant said that a decision had been made as to his release from prison but without his having had opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The board had acted in breach of its common law duty to act fairly, and incompatibly with . .
At first instanceReilly, Re Judicial Review QBNI 10-May-2010
The court had found that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s human rights in making a decision against his release from prison on parole without affording an opportunity to make oral representations. It now considered the remedy. . .
Appeal fromReilly, Re Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2011
The applicant had been granted judicial review of a decision by the parole board not to grant his release on parole but without having afforded him an oral hearing. The Board now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court followed the . .
CitedThe Sunday Times (No 1) v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Apr-1979
Offence must be ;in accordance with law’
The court considered the meaning of the need for an offence to be ‘in accordance with law.’ The applicants did not argue that the expression prescribed by law required legislation in every case, but contended that legislation was required only where . .
CitedSanchez-Reisse v Switzerland ECHR 21-Oct-1986
That a detainee may be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation can be a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty. Article 5(4)was inspired by the English law of habeas corpus. . .
CitedKoendjbiharie v The Netherlands ECHR 25-Oct-1990
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 5-4; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Unsuccessful proceedings brought . .
CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedHatton and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Jul-2003
More Night Flights No Infringement of Family Life
The claimants complained that the respondent had acted to infringe their rights. They were residents living locally to Heathrow Airport. They claimed the respondent had increased the number of night flights, causing increased noise, but without . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
CitedGuardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court CA 3-Apr-2012
The newspaper applied for leave to access documents referred to but not released during the course of extradition proceedings in open court.
Held: The application was to be allowed. Though extradition proceedings were not governed by the Civil . .
CitedFaulkner, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another SC 1-May-2013
The applicants had each been given a life sentence, but having served the minimum term had been due to have the continued detention reviewed to establish whether or not continued detention was necessary for the protection of the pblic. It had not . .
CitedThe King v The Chancellor, Masters And Scholars of The University of Cambridge, Or Doctor Bentley’s Case 1748
Fundamental Right to Present a Defence
Fortescue J said: ‘The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man, upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon . .
CitedCooper v The Board of Works For The Wandsworth Destrict 21-Apr-1863
Where a land-owner owner had failed to give proper notice to the Board, the Board had, under the 1855 Act, power to demolish any building he had erected and recover the cost from him. The plaintiff said that the Board had used that power without . .
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AF AN and AE (No 3) HL 10-Jun-2009
The applicants complained that they had been made subject to non-derogating control orders as suspected terrorists, but that the failure to inform them of the allegations or evidence against them was unfair and infringed their human rights. The . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board, Ex parte Bradley QBD 1990
A Parole Board should scrutinise ever more anxiously whether the level of risk is unacceptable on considering the release of a prisoner, the longer the time the prisoner has spent in prison following the expiry of his tariff. The Board had to carry . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedHussain v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1996
The determination of a life sentence by the Home Secretary without recourse to a court was unlawful. There had been a violation of article 5(4) because the applicant who had been detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure was unable, after the expiry of his . .
CitedCurley v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Mar-2000
A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose . .
CitedHL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Patient’s lack of Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
CitedRoose v The Parole Board and Another Admn 16-Jul-2010
If representations made in support of the prisoner’s request for an oral hearing raise issues which place in question anything in the provisional decision which may in practice have a significant impact on the prisoner’s future management in prison . .

Cited by:
CitedWhiston, Regina (on The Application of) SC 2-Jul-2014
The claimant, having been released from prison on licence, objected to the procedure whereby his licence was revoked with no means for him to challenge that decision.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Article 5(4) did not apply to the particular . .
CitedMoseley, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Haringey SC 29-Oct-2014
Consultation requirements
The claimant challenged a decision of the respondent reducing the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme reducing Council Tax for those in need, saying that the Council’s consultation had been inadequate.
Held: The consultation was . .
CitedA v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedBourgass 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 . .
CitedAustin, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board for England and Wales Admn 17-Jan-2022
Parole Board Publication Scheme Unduly Complicated
This claim for judicial review raises important issues about the lawfulness of the Parole Board’s policy and practice in relation to the provision of a summary of a Parole Board decision to victims and victims’ families and the media. The protocol . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice, Human Rights

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.516313

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 conditions for relying upon any such representation were fulfilled; and if holding the Inland Revenue to the representation did not prevent it from exercising its statutory duties.
Fairness was a well-established ingredient of the notion of legitimate expectation. A claim to a legitimate expectation can be based only upon a promise which is ‘clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification.’ and ‘In so stating these requirements I do not, I hope, diminish or emasculate the valuable, developing doctrine of legitimate expectation. If a public authority so conducts itself as to create a legitimate expectation that a certain course will be followed it would often be unfair if the authority were permitted to follow a different course to the detriment of one who entertained the expectation, particularly if he acted on it. If in private law a body would be in breach of contract in so acting or estopped from so acting a public authority should generally be in no better position. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is rooted in fairness. But fairness is not a one-way street. It imports the notion of equitableness, of fair and open dealing, to which the authority is as much entitled as the citizen.’
The court will only interfere in a decision if the respondents have exercised their discretion unreasonably and in considering that question, the respondents’ judgment is not to be lightly cast aside.

Bingham LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 1545, [1990] 1 All ER 91
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd 1989
The taxpayer complained of a change in Inland Revenue practice which, it said, went against a legitimate expectation created by the scheme.
Held: Judge J said: ‘There is a detailed procedure for resolving disputes between the Inland Revenue . .

Cited by:
CitedBloggs 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 . .
CitedChurchhouse, Regina (on the Application of) v Inland Revenue Admn 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer was a revenue informer one whose trade is described by Coke as ‘viperous vermin [who] under the reverend mantle of law and justice instituted for protection of the innocent, and the good of the Commonwealth, did vexe and depauperize the . .
AffirmedBancoult, 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 . .
CitedLondon Borough of Hillingdon and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and others Admn 6-Nov-2008
The claimant challenged the substantial increase in court fees in public law children cases in the Fees Orders. The respondent said that the orders were intended to reflect the true costs of such proceedings and that funding had been provided to . .
CitedOxfam 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 . .
CitedGrimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education, Regina (on The Application of) v Learning and Skills Council Admn 12-Aug-2010
The applicant had applied to the respondent for funding for new buildings. The application was approved, but the application was rejected when the respondent ran out of funds. The claimant said that a legitimate expectation had been created, and . .
CitedWheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another Admn 2-May-2008
The applicant sought leave to bring judicial review of the prime minister’s decsion not to hold a referendum on the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon.
Held: The claimant had arguable points under the 2000 Act and otherwise, and permission . .
CitedBadger 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 . .
CitedBancoult, 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.
CitedJJ 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 . .
CitedFinucane, Re Application for Judicial Review SC 27-Feb-2019
(Northern Ireland) The deceased solicitor was murdered in his home in 1989, allegedly by loyalists. They had never been identified, though collusion between security forces and a loyalist paramilitary was established. The ECHR and a judge led . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Administrative

Leading Case

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.183656

Regina v Army Board of Defence Council, ex parte Anderson: QBD 1991

Members of the Armed Forces who alleged discrimination did not have access to Industrial Tribunals. The only recourse was to make a service complaint which would then be considered by the Army Board. Anderson complained of race discrimination. His service complaint had been dismissed and in his application for judicial review he challenged the procedure which the Panel had adopted including not holding an oral hearing.
Held:
Taylor LJ said: ‘The hearing does not necessarily have to be an oral hearing in all cases. There is ample authority that decision-making bodies other than courts and bodies whose procedures are laid down by statute, are masters of their own procedure. Provided that they achieve the degree of fairness appropriate to their task it is for them to decide how they will proceed and there is no rule that fairness always requires an oral hearing: see Local Government Board v. Arlidge [1915] A.C. 120, 132-133; Reg. v. Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1686, 1694B-D and Reg. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Jones (Ross) [1988] 1 W.L.R. 477, 481B-G. Whether an oral hearing is necessary will depend upon the subject matter and circumstances of the particular case and upon the nature of the decision to be made. It will also depend upon whether there are substantial issues of fact which cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the available written evidence. This does not mean that whenever there is a conflict of evidence in the statements taken, an oral hearing must be held to resolve it. Sometimes such a conflict can be resolved merely by the inherent unlikelihood of one version or the other. Sometimes the conflict is not central to the issue for determination and would not justify an oral hearing. Even when such a hearing is necessary, it may only require one or two witnesses to be called and cross-examined.’

Taylor LJ, Morland J
[1992] QB 169, [1991] 3 All ER 375, [1991] 3 WLR 42
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLocal Government Board v Arlidge HL 1914
A right of appeal against the exercise of a statutory authority requires no general right to an oral hearing before an administrative decision maker, and a hearing on the papers may be perfectly fair for legal purposes.
Lord Shaw said: ‘The . .
CitedRegina v Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan CA 1975
Lord Denning MR said: ‘In recent years we have had to consider the procedure of many bodies who are required to make an investigation and form an opinion . . In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Armed Forces, Discrimination, Natural Justice

Leading Case

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.539816

Jacobson v Frachn: CA 1927

Atkin LJ described the principles of natural justice as follows: ‘Those principles seem to me to involve this, first of all that the court being a court of competent jurisdiction, has given notice to the litigant that they are about to proceed to determine the rights between him and the other litigant; the other is that having given him that notice, it does afford him an opportunity of substantially presenting his case before the court.’

Atkins LJ
44 TLR 103, (1927) 138 LT 386
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.670958

Foster v The Secretary of State for Justice: CA 26 Mar 2015

‘This case concerns the recall to prison of a prisoner released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) and is based on the contention that the common law duty of fairness requires that the prisoner is provided with the opportunity of an oral hearing to advance submissions as to why he should not have been recalled. ‘

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Jackson, Black LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 281
Bailii
England and Wales

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.544821

Regina v HM Prison Service ex parte Hibbert: Admn 16 Jan 1997

The general contention that the governor, being part of the prison administration and privy to the decision, could not conduct an adjudication within th eprison was not ‘something outside the normal situation, which could justify intervention in response to a bias accusation’.

Latham J
[1997] EWHC Admin 20
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedAl-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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Natural Justice

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.136965

Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd: SC 27 Nov 2020

This appeal concerns the circumstances in which an arbitrator in an international arbitration may appear to be biased. It raises important questions about the duty of impartiality and obligation of arbitrators to make disclosure.

Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden
[2020] UKSC 48, [2021] AC 1083, [2021] Lloyd’s Rep IR 1, [2021] BLR 1, [2021] 2 All ER 1175, [2020] WLR(D) 653, 193 Con LR 1, [2020] 3 WLR 1474
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, WLRD
England and Wales

Arbitration, Natural Justice

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.656384

Vallee And Others v Dumergue: CExC 6 Jul 1849

A provision in the constitution of a company regulated proceedings against shareholders. The plaintiff liquidators sought enforcement in England of a French judgment against a shareholder for his contribution to the debts of the company. The judgment debtor was resident in England. It was pleaded by the liquidators that under French law it was necessary for a shareholder to elect a domicile in France, at which the directors of the company might notify him of all proceedings relative to the company, or to the defendant as such shareholder; and that the defendant made election of domicile at a place in Paris, and gave notice thereof to the plaintiffs.
Held: Submission to the foreign court would occur where the judgment debtor had ‘expressly or implicitly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction’ of the foreign court.
It was not contrary to natural justice that a man who has agreed to receive a particular mode of notification of legal proceedings should be bound by a judgment in which that particular mode of notification has been followed, even though he may not have had actual notice of them.

Alderson, B
[1849] EngR 834, (1849) 4 Exch 290, (1849) 154 ER 1221
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedVizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another PC 3-Feb-2016
No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York
(Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Company, Natural Justice

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.299139

John v Rees and Others; Martin and Another v Davis and Others: ChD 1969

The Court was asked as to the validity of proceedings at a meeting of the members of the local Labour Party which had broken up in disorder. The proceedings were instituted by the leader of one faction on behalf of himself and all other members of the local Labour party other than the three individual defendants who constituted the other faction.
Held: The court refused to strike out the claim.
The rule from ‘the Duke of Bedford’ case with regard to representative actions in Chancery is to be treated not as a rigid matter of principle but a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice.
The court observed about the argument that as to a failure to follow proper procedure, ‘it will make no difference’. ‘It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious,’ they may say, ‘why force everyone to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious from the start.’ Those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change. Nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find that a decision against them has been made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence events.’ The language used is relevant to the issue whether it is ‘apt . . to exclude the . . expectation of being accorded natural justice.’
A supension can have very severe effects on an employee’s reputation, ‘In essence suspension is merely expulsion pro tanto. Each is penal, and each deprives the member concerned of his enjoyments of membership or office. Accordingly, in my judgment the rules of natural justice prima facie apply to any process of suspension in the same way they apply to expulsion. In my view therefore, it is clear that the suspension of the Applicant is justiciable.’

Megarry J
[1970] 1 Ch 345, [1969] 2 All ER 275
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDuke of Bedford v Ellis HL 10-Dec-1900
Ellis and five others sued on behalf of themselves and all other growers of fruit, flowers, vegetables, roots or herbs to enforce rights conferred on them by the Covent Garden Act 1828 against the Duke of Bedford as the owner of the market. The Duke . .

Cited by:
CitedIndependiente Ltd and others v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd and others ChD 13-Mar-2003
The claimants claimed damages for the sale by the defendants in the UK of CD’s manufactured for sale only in the far East. The defendants challenged the right of a claimant phonographic society to have the right to sue on behalf of its members.
ApprovedAmin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .
CitedM Iqbal v Consignia Plc EAT 5-Dec-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal
The claimant had had his claims for discrimination rejected. He was found to have been unfairly dismissed, but with nil compensation because of what was found to . .
CitedRegina v Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, Ex parte Cotton CA 1990
The Chief Constable’s power to dispense with a probationer’s services under Condition 7 is only exercisable in cases where the probationer constable’s unfitness does not arise from alleged misconduct, for example where it arises from the constable’s . .
CitedInterbulk Limited v Aiden Shipping Co Limited (The ‘Vimeira’) CA 1984
The court considered whether an arbitrator had a duty to raise a point missed by counsel.
Held: Robert Goff LJ: ‘In truth, we are simply talking about fairness. It is not fair to decide a case against a party on an issue which has never been . .
CitedEmerald Supplies Ltd and Another v British Airways Plc ChD 8-Apr-2009
The claim was for damages after alleged price fixing by the defendants. The claimants sought to recover for themselves and as representatives of others who had similarly suffered. The defendants sought that the representative element of the claim be . .
CitedShoesmith, 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 . .
CitedBank 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 . .
CitedMR, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 10-Mar-2017
The claimant challenged the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw his passport. He had as a youth been involved with a terrorist organisation, but said that he now regretted that and was no longer so involved. He had sought to set up a business, . .
CitedGerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Employment, Natural Justice

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.179754

Regina v Gough (Robert): HL 1993

The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with that brother to commit burglaries. The juror had sworn an affidavit that she had not not known of the connection.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The House set out the test for bias. The test for bias in a juror where apparent bias was alleged, was whether there was a real danger that the defendant had been denied a fair trial.
Lord Woolf said: ‘It must be remembered that except in the rare case where actual bias is alleged, the court is not concerned to investigate whether or not bias has been established. Whether it is a judge, a member of the jury, justices or their clerk, who is alleged to be biased, the courts do not regard it as being desirable or useful to inquire into the individual’s state of mind. It is not desirable because of the confidential nature of the judicial decision making process. It is not useful because the courts have long recognised that bias operates in such an insidious manner that the person alleged to be biased may be quite unconscious of its effect.
It is because the court in the majority of cases does not inquire whether actual bias exists that the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done applies. When considering whether there is a real danger of injustice, the court gives effect to the maxim, but does so by examining all the material available and giving its conclusion on that material. If the court having done so is satisfied there is no danger of the alleged bias having created injustice, then the application to quash the decision should be dismissed. This, therefore, should have been the result in the Sussex Justices case if Lord Hewart C.J’s remarks are to be taken at face value and are to be treated as a finding, and not merely an assumption, that there was no danger of the justices’ decision being contaminated by the possible bias of the clerk.’
Lord Goff of Chieveley said that was meant by bias was extraneous prejudice and predilection: ‘it possible, and desirable, that the same test should be applicable in all cases of apparent bias, whether concerned with justices or members of other inferior tribunals, or with jurors, or with arbitrators. Likewise I consider that, in cases concerned with jurors, the same test should be applied by a judge to whose attention the possibility of bias on the part of a juror has been drawn in the course of a trial, and by the Court of Appeal when it considers such a question on appeal. Furthermore, I think it unnecessary, in formulating the appropriate test, to require that the court should look at the matter through the eyes of a reasonable man, because the court in cases such as these personifies the reasonable man; and in any event the court has first to ascertain the relevant circumstances from the available evidence, knowledge of which would not necessarily be available to an observer in court at the relevant time. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I prefer to state the test in terms of real danger rather than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is thinking in terms of possibility rather than probability of bias. Accordingly, having ascertained the relevant circumstances, the court should ask itself whether, having regard to those circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in question, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him; ‘
‘ A layman might well wonder why the function of a court in cases such as these should not simply be to conduct an inquiry into the question whether the tribunal was in fact biased. After all it is alleged that, for example, a justice or a juryman was biased, i.e. that he was motivated by a desire unfairly to favour one side or to disfavour the other. Why does the court not simply decide whether that was in fact the case? The answer, as always, is that it is more complicated than that. First of all, there are difficulties about exploring the actual state of mind of a justice or juryman. In the case of both, such an inquiry has been thought to be undesirable: and in the case of the juryman in particular, there has long been an inhibition against, so to speak, entering the jury room and finding out what any particular juryman actually thought at the time of decision. But there is also the simple fact that bias is such an insidious thing that, even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias.’ and ‘ the approach of the law has been (save on the very rare occasion where actual bias is proved) to look at the relevant circumstances and to consider whether there is such a degree of possibility of bias that the decision in question should not be allowed to stand.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Woolf
Independent 26-May-1993, Times 24-May-1993, [1993] AC 646, [1993] 2 All ER 727, [1993] UKHL 1, [1993] 97 Cr App R 188, [1993] 2 WLR 883
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Gough CACD 2-Jun-1992
A juror had lived next door to a party to the burglary alleged against the defendant. The defendant alleged bias. The juror said she had been unaware of the connection.
Held: The question of whether there had been bias in a jury trial is . .
CitedRex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy KBD 9-Nov-1923
Clerk wrongly retired with Justices
There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of . .
CitedRegina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ Association 1960
Even though a person may in good faith believe that he was acting impartially, his mind may unconsciously be affected by a bias. Devlin LJ said: ‘Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and . .
CitedRegina v Camborne Justices ex parte Pearce QBD 1954
The applicant had been convicted by the Justices on charges of offences under the Food and Drugs Act 1938 which had been brought under the authority of the Health Committee of the Cornwall County Council. The Clerk to the Justices was a councillor . .
CitedRegina v Spencer; Regina v Smails HL 24-Jul-1986
The defendants were nurses employed at Rampton secure hospital accused of assaults on patients. The witnesses against them had been inmates. They complained that the judge had failed to direct the jurors about the dangers of relying upon their . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina v Francois Pierre Marcellin Thoron CACD 30-Jul-2001
The appellant had been convicted that as a haulage contractor he had conspired with his drivers to cause them to drive beyond the permitted hours, and in other ways contrary to their safety. He argued it was a misuse of the Act to ally it with the . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
ModifiedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
CitedLawal v Northern Spirit Limited HL 19-Jun-2003
Counsel appearing at the tribunal had previously sat as a judge with a tribunal member. The opposing party asserted bias in the tribunal.
Held: The test in Gough should be restated in part so that the court must first ascertain all the . .
CitedCairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
ExplainedRegina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft CA 16-Jun-1994
A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is . .
CitedRegina v Stipendiary Magistrate for Norfolk ex parte Dean Taylor Admn 1-Jul-1997
The prosecutor applied ex parte to the magistrate for an order that he need not disclose certain material to the defendant. Though the hearing was inter partes, the content of the protected material was not shown to the defendant’s solciitor. . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedRegina on the Application of Mahfouz v The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council CA 5-Mar-2004
The doctor requested members of the disciplinary tribunal to recuse themselves when, after the first day of the hearing they saw prejudicial material in newspapers which material was not in evidence. They had further declined to allow an adjournment . .
DoubtedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
CitedMeerabux v The Attorney General of Belize PC 23-Mar-2005
(Belize) The applicant complained at his removal as a justice of the Supreme Court, stating it was unconstitutional. The complaint had been decided by a member of the Bar Council which had also recommended his removal, and he said it had been . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedWebb and Hay v The Queen 30-Jun-1994
(Australia) Criminal Law – Jury – Impartiality – Murder trial – Juror giving flowers to victim’s mother – Whether juror or jury to be discharged Appropriate test – Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of . .
CitedFlaherty 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 . .
CitedGillies v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 26-Jan-2006
The claimant said that the medical member of the tribunal which had heard his disability claim was biased. The doctor was on a temporary contract and also worked for an agency which contracted directly the Benfits Agency. The court of session had . .
CitedMorrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .
CitedRegina 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. . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
CitedRegina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
CitedRegina v KS CACD 17-Nov-2009
The jury had been discharged by the judge after finding jury tampering, and he decided to continue alone. The jury had not known of the earlier convictions of others involved in the alleged conspiracy, but the judge did and he had made reference to . .
CitedRegina v Stone CACD 14-Feb-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction in 1998 of murder based on a confession said to have been made to a fellow prisoner on remand. A witness supporting that confession said after the trial that he had lied under police pressure. The appeal . .
CitedKaur, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Legal Executives Appeal Tribunal and Another CA 19-Oct-2011
The claimant appealed against rejection of judicial review of a finding that she had effectively cheated at a professional examination for the Institute. She compained that the presence of a director and the council’s vice-president of the Institute . .
CitedAbegaze v IPR Technical Development Ltd EAT 2-Sep-1998
The court was asked whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point of law. The claimant had requested witness orders, but the tribunal had refused them. Five of the six requested attended as defentant’s witnesses.
Held: The Industrial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.183296

Law v Chartered Institute of Patent Agents: 1919

Eve J discussed the test for bias in the members of a council making a decision: ‘If he has a bias which renders him otherwise than an impartial judge he is disqualified from performing his duty. Nay, more (so jealous is the policy of our law of the purity of the administration of justice), if there are circumstances so affecting a person acting in a judicial capacity as to be calculated to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of that person’s impartiality, those circumstances are themselves sufficient to disqualify although in fact no bias exists’.

Eve J
[1919] 2 Ch 276
Cited by:
AppliedBradford v McLeod HCJ 1985
A sheriff passed a comment that he would not grant legal aid to a miner. He was overheard by a solicitor. The solicitor subsequently asked that sheriff to recuse himself on applications for legal aid by miners accused of breach of the peace while . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.184175

Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and Another; Locabail (UK) Ltd and Another v Waldorf Investment Corporation and others (No 2): ChD 18 May 1999

A solicitor sitting as a judge was not obliged to disqualify himself even though his firm might not have been able to act for one of the parties to the case, unless a reasonable third party might properly think that he could not be impartial.

Times 18-May-1999
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.83131

Powell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary: CA 20 Aug 1999

Application for permission to appeal by the defendant. The defendant had asserted a public interest immunity in refusing to disclose evidence of a witness since it would lead to the revelation of the identity of an informer.
Held: Leave was given. Where a court decided that the admission of evidence would have to be hidden from the other party, because a claim for public interest immunity had to be accepted, the evidence itself should be excluded. The court had no discretion to find some kind of compromise for its admission.

Laws LJ
Times 11-Feb-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 2097
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarks v Beyfus 1890
The plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. He called the Director of Public Prosecutions as a witness, who refused to identify the name of the person who had given him the information on which he had acted against the plaintiff.
Cited by:
LeavePowell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary CA 16-Dec-1999
Roch LJ said: ‘When an issue of public interest immunity is raised, the court’s first duty is to weigh the public interest in preserving the immunity against the public interest that all relevant information which might assist a court to ascertain . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.147012

Regina v Inner West London Coroner Ex Parte Dallaglio, and Ex Parte Lockwood Croft: CA 16 Jun 1994

A coroner’s comment that the deceased’s relative was ‘unhinged’ displayed a bias which was irreparable. ‘The description ‘apparent bias’ traditionally given to this head of bias is not entirely apt, for if despite the appearance of bias the court is able to examine all the relevant material and satisfy itself that there was no danger [possibility] of the alleged bias having in fact caused injustice, the impugned decision will be allowed to stand’ and ‘the court’s task is to ascertain the relevant circumstances and ask itself whether, having regard to these circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on the part of HM Coroner for Inner West London in the sense that he might have unfairly regarded with disfavour the cases of the applicants as parties to an issue under consideration by him.’
Simon Brown LJ analysed the case of R v Gough: ‘From R v. Gough I derive the following propositions: (1) Any court seised of a challenge on the ground of apparent bias must ascertain the relevant circumstances and consider all the evidence for itself so as to reach its own conclusion on the facts. (2) It necessarily follows that the factual position may appear quite differently as between the time when the challenge is launched and the time when it comes to be decided by the court. What may appear at the leave stage to be a strong case of justice `not manifestly and undoubtedly being seen to be done’, may, following the court’s investigation, nevertheless fail. Or, of course, although perhaps less probably, the case may have become stronger. (3) In reaching its conclusion the court `personifies the reasonable man’. (4) The question upon which the court must reach its own factual conclusion is this: is there a real danger of injustice having occurred as a result of bias? By ‘real’ is meant not without substance. A real danger clearly involves more than a minimal risk, less than a probability. One could, I think, as well speak of a real risk or a real possibility. (5) Injustice will have occurred as a result of bias `if the decision-maker unfairly regarded with disfavour the case of a party to the issue under consideration by him’. I take `unfairly regarded with disfavour’ to mean `was pre-disposed or prejudiced against one party’s case for reasons unconnected with the merits of the issue’. (6) A decision-maker may have unfairly regarded with disfavour one party’s case either consciously or unconsciously. Where, as here, the applicants expressly disavow any suggestion of actual bias, it seems to me that the court must necessarily be asking itself whether there is a real danger that the decision-maker was unconsciously biased. (7) It will be seen, therefore, that by the time the legal challenge comes to be resolved, the court is no longer concerned strictly with the appearance of bias but rather with establishing the possibility that there was actual although unconscious bias.’

Simon Brown LJ, Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Independent 17-Jun-1994, Times 16-Jun-1994, [1994] 4 All ER 139
England and Wales
Citing:
ExplainedRegina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
ExplainedRex v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy KBD 9-Nov-1923
Clerk wrongly retired with Justices
There had been a prosecution before the lay magistrates for dangerous driving. Unknown to the defendant and his solicitors, the Clerk to the Justices was a member of the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of . .
CitedRegina v Coroner for Western District of Sussex Ex Parte Homberg Roberts and Mannerss QBD 27-Jan-1994
A Coroner’s enquires should be as to ‘how’ the death arose, and not into all the circumstances contributing to the death.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It is clear that the coroner’s over-riding duty is to inquire ‘how’ the deceased came by his death . .

Cited by:
CitedCairnstores Ltd Generics (UK) Ltd and Another v Aktiebolaget Hassle CA 22-Oct-2002
Two patents had been invaildated for obviousness. They related to coatings on medicinal pills. The patent holder said the judge’s interruptions indicated bias.
Held: The sumissions were unjustified. The interventions were by no means . .
CitedRegina v Stipendiary Magistrate for Norfolk ex parte Dean Taylor Admn 1-Jul-1997
The prosecutor applied ex parte to the magistrate for an order that he need not disclose certain material to the defendant. Though the hearing was inter partes, the content of the protected material was not shown to the defendant’s solciitor. . .
CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedLodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
CitedIn Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association CA 21-Dec-2000
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself.
Held: When asking whether material . .
CitedFlaherty 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 . .
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
CitedMcKeown v British Horseracing Authority QBD 12-Mar-2010
The jockey claimant challenged disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the defendant authority.
Held: The findings were upheld in part but remitted for consideration of giving the claimant opportunity to challenge certain evidence. . .
CitedJones v HM Coroner for The Southern District of Greater London and Another Admn 28-Apr-2010
The mother of the deceased asked for a new inquest, saying that there had been insufficient enquiry. He was an adult suffering Asperger’s syndrome and other difficulties, but had sought and been given excess prescriptions of fentanyl a drug to . .
CitedLocabail (UK) Ltd, Regina v Bayfield Properties Ltd CA 17-Nov-1999
Adverse Comments by Judge Need not be Show of Bias
In five cases, leave to appeal was sought on the basis that a party had been refused disqualification of judges on grounds of bias. The court considered the circumstances under which a fear of bias in a court may prove to be well founded: ‘The mere . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Coroners, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.86950

Parmar and others (trading as Ace Knitwear) v Woods (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 30 May 2002

The taxpayers had been represented by a professional accountant, but incompetently. They sought leave to renew the appeal on the basis that the representation had been poor.
Held: The chartered accountant had a statutory right of audience. His fitness and expertise was warranted and assumed. No breach of natural justice had occurred. His incompetence in fact was a matter for his professional body, and a renewed hearing, save in one aspect, was not allowed.

Lightman J
Gazette 11-Jul-2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromParmar (T/A Ace Knitwear) v Inspector of Taxes SCIT 14-Aug-2001
INCOME TAX – partnership – whether a loss was incurred in the year ending on 31 December 1991 – no – whether the disposal value of machinery and plant destroyed by fire in 1991 exceeded the capital expenditure incurred in the provision of that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Natural Justice

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.174320