Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Administrative - From: 1960 To: 1969

This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v His Honour Judge Sir Donald Hurst, ex parte Smith [1960] 2 All ER 385
1960
QBD
Lord Parker CJ
Elections, Administrative
The County Court Judge had directed the removal from the electoral register the names of a number of persons who were not party to the proceedings before him. Motions were brought in the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash his directions. The issue arose as to whether there was jurisdiction to do so, having regard to s.107 of the County Courts Act 1959 which provided: "Subject to the provisions of any other Act relating to county courts, no judgment or order of any judge of county courts, nor any appeal proceedings brought before him or pending in his court, shall be removed by appeal, motion, certiorari or otherwise into any other court whatever, except in the manner and according to the provisions of this Act mentioned." Held: Lord Parker CJ said: "The leading case on the matter is Ex p. Bradlaugh (1878), 3 Q.B.D. 509, where Mellor, J., put the principle in these words . . 'It is well established that the provision taking away the certiorari does not apply where there was an absence of jurisdiction. The consequence of holding otherwise would be that a metropolitan magistrate could make any order he pleased without question.'
To the same effect is a number of cases including, coming to quite recent times, R. v. Worthington-Evans, Ex p. Madan [1959] 2 Q.B. at p.152 and Re Gilmore's Application [1957] 1 Q.B. at p.588. I am quite satisfied that certiorari will lie against a county court judge if he has acted without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the sections of the County Courts Act, 1959, to which I have referred."
County Courts Act 1959 107
1 Citers


 
Thames Launches v Trinity House [1961] Ch 197
1961


Administrative

1 Citers



 
 Edwick v Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District Council; 1962 - [1962] 1 QB 229
 
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen [1963] 2 QB 243
1963
CA
Lord Denning MR
Administrative, Immigration
Lord Denning MR discussed a decision to deport the applicant. The validity of the Minister's act: "depends on the purpose with which the act is done.: "If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an authorised purpose, but in fact for a different purpose with an ulterior object, it was unlawful."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Finbow v Air Ministry [1963] 1 WLR 697
1963

McNair J
Landlord and Tenant, Administrative
The minister had mistakenly exercised a formal power to approve a licence to occupy land under a repealed section instead of its re-enacted successor. The claimant said that this was not an effective approval. The court also considered the authorities on how to distringuish between a lease and a licence. Held: The misdescription of his powers rendered the document a nullity would defeat the plain intention of the Minister. McNair J said "It is, in my judgment, a plain case for the application of the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet and of the principle embodied in the maxim magis valeat quam valeat. There is a total inconsistency and repugnancy between the minister's manifest intention and the literal effect of the document, and, in my judgment, the former should prevail."
As to the nature of the agreement: "1) that the agreement must be construed as a whole and that the relationship is determined by law and not by the lable which the parties put on it, though the label is a factor to be taken into account in determining the true relationship; . . . 2) that the grant of exclusive possession, if not conclusive against the view that there is a mere licence as distinct from a tenancy, is at any rate a consideration of the first importance;' and in all the cases where a licence was found, that was because of the presence of factors such as those set out in Facchini.
As to the effect of reliance upon the mistake, McNair J said: "The document was in the circumstances in which it was executed plainly intended by the Minister to be an approval in the exercise of his statutory powers. These powers at the date of the instrument were to be found only in section 2 of the Act of 1948. To hold that the mis- description of his powers rendered the document a nullity, would, in my judgment, defeat the plain intention of the Minister to be deduced from the circumstances and the date of its execution. It is, in my judgment, a plain case for the application of the maxim falsa demonstratio non nocet and of the principle embodied in the maxim magis valeat quam pereat. There is a total inconsistency and repugnancy between the Minister's manifest intention and the literal effect of the document, and, in my judgment, the former should prevail. In this connection, reference may be made to In re Lockwood, Atherton v Brooke, where Harman J was confronted with a rather similar problem arising out of mistake in a statute and approved a citation from Maxwell on Statutes (now 11th ed. (1962) p 243) to the following effect: 'The authorities do .... establish that the judicial interpreter may deal with careless and inaccurate words and phrases in the same spirit as a critic deals with an obscure or corrupt test, when satisfied, on solid grounds, from the context or history of the enactment or from the injustice, inconvenience, or absurdity of the consequences to which it would lead, that the language thus treated does not really express the intention and that this amendment probably does.'"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hanks and Others v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 QB 999
1963

Megaw J
Administrative
A factor in a decision might be so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. There might be cases where the factor wrongly omitted was ‘insignificant’ and thus would not justify concluding that the exercise of power was ‘bad’.
1 Citers


 
In Re K (Infants); Official Solicitor v K [1965] AC 201; [1963] 3 All ER 191
2 Jan 1963
HL
Lord Devlin
Children, Administrative, Natural Justice
The House considered the propriety of a tribunal chairman seeing material not placed before the parties. This was a wardship case. Held: Where the interests of the parents and the child conflicted, "the welfare of the child must dominate".
Lord Devlin spoke of "the fundamental principle of justice that the judge should not look at material that the parties before him have not seen".
Referring to "the ordinary principles of a judicial inquiry", he continued: "They include the rules that all justice shall be done openly and that it shall be done only after a fair hearing; and also the rule that is in point here, namely, that judgment shall be given only upon evidence that is made known to all parties. Some of these principles are so fundamental that they must be observed by everyone who is acting judicially, whether he is sitting in a court of law or not; and these are called the principles of natural justice. The rule in point here is undoubtedly one of those." and "[w]here the judge sits purely as an arbiter and relies on the parties for information, the parties have a correlative right that he should act only on information which they have had the opportunity of testing. Where the judge is not sitting purely, or primarily, as an arbiter, but is charged with the paramount duty of protecting one outside the conflict, a rule that is designed for just arbitrament cannot in all circumstances prevail."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Ibralebbe v The Queen [1964] AC 900; [1964] 1 All ER 251; [1964] 2 WLR 76
1964
PC
Viscount Radcliffe
Administrative, Constitutional
(St Kitts) The Privy Council is part of the judicial system of the country whence an appeal comes and it is not an institution of the United Kingdom.
The power to make ordinances for the government of dependencies is extremely wide.
'The words "peace, order, and good government" connote, in British constitutional language, the widest law-making powers appropriate to a sovereign.'
1 Citers



 
 Ridge v Baldwin (No 1); HL 1964 - [1964] AC 40; [1963] UKHL 2
 
Merricks and Another v Nott-Bower [1964] 1 All ER 717; [1965] 1 QB 57; [1965] 2 WLR 702
1964
CA
Lord Denning MR
Litigation Practice, Administrative
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 them had been taken contrary to natural justice. Held. Lord Denning MR said that: "It is asked: what use can such declarations be at this stage, when the transfer took place six and a half years ago? What good does it do now? There can be no question of reopening the transfers . . on this point we have been referred to a number of cases which show how greatly the power to grant a declaration has been widened in recent years. If a real question is involved, which is not merely theoretical, and on which the court's gives practical guidance, then the court in its discretion can grant a declaration." and "Such being the case made, I am not prepared to say that it is unarguable. It is a well-known principle of our law that any powers conferred by statute or regulation on an executive or administrative authority must be exercised in good faith for the purpose for which they are granted. They must not be misused or abused by being applied to an ulterior purpose. Whether that principle applies here or not, I do not say; all I do say is that, if the plaintiffs allege, as they did that this was a misuse of the power of transfer that it was used, not for the purpose of good administration and efficiency but for the motive of punishment they have an arguable case which they are entitled to have tried by the courts."
1 Citers



 
 Simpsons Motor Sales (London) Ltd v Hendon Corporation; HL 1964 - [1964] AC 1088
 
Pfizer Corporation v Ministry of Health [1964] Ch 614
1964
CA
Lord Justice Diplock, Willmer LJ
Administrative, Health
Lord Justice Diplock said: "The duty to provide hospital and specialist services is imposed upon the Minister. It is in its nature a duty which he can only perform vicariously through agents acting on his behalf. The Act requires him to do so through the immediate agency of the Regional Hospital Boards. The Regional Hospital Boards, being corporations, can themselves only do the physical acts involved in the provision of the services on behalf of the Minister, vicariously through their offices and servants. Any act done by an officer or servant of a Regional Hospital Board for the purpose of providing hospital or specialist services is accordingly done on behalf of the Minister in performance of the statutory duty which is imposed upon him. Their acts are acts of a government department."
Willmer LJ said that in mid-Victorian times the treatment of patients in hospitals would have been regarded as 'something quite foreign to the functions of government' but there there has been, since those times: "a revolution in political thought and a totally different conception prevails today as to what is and what is not within the functions of Government".
1 Citers



 
 Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government; CA 1965 - [1965] 1 WLR 1320; [1965] 3 All ER 371
 
James v Secretary of State for Wales [1965] 63 LGR 269
1965
QBD

Administrative, Planning
The defendant challenged the validity of a planning enforcement notice served after he had increased the number of caravans on his site. The Secretary of State said it amounted to a change of use.
1 Citers


 
The Mayor and Corporation of Port Louis v The Honourable Attorney General of Mauritiuis [1965] UKPC 17; [1965] AC 1111
27 Apr 1965
PC

Commonwealth, Administrative
Meaningful public participation in a decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about the draft scheme, but also with an outline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for the authority's adoption of the draft scheme.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
James v Secretary of State for Wales [1966] 1 WLR 135
1966
CA
Lord Denning and Davies LJ
Administrative, Planning
The planning authority served an enforcement notice after the land owner increased the number of caravans on his land. The court considered the validity of the enforcement notice. Lord Denning said: "It was said on behalf of the appellant that the change of use alleged in the enforcement notice (from one to four caravans) was not a material change of use. Intensification of an existing use, it was said, is not a material change of use. I do not agree. I think that a considerable increase in the number of caravans would be a material change of use. In any case it must be remember that this whole site was used as a pleasure ground with a café and one caravan. If the site is used as well for several caravans, that would be a material change of use. It would be a change from a pleasure ground to a caravan site, at least in part. This question -- of a material change of use -- has been repeatedly held to be a question of fact and degree. The Divisional Court was quite right to refer it to the Minister for decision."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Patras v Commonwealth (1966) 9 FLR 152
1966

Lush J
Administrative, Estoppel
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The court distinguished decisions which are judicial from those which are purely administrative: "The underlying principle of this form of estoppel is that parties who have had a dispute heard by a competent tribunal shall not be allowed to litigate the same issues in other tribunals. When the decision-making body is an administrative body not affording the opportunity of presenting evidence and argument . . there is no room for the operation of this principle . . It appears to me that both upon the general language of the authorities . . and upon . . principle . . no estoppel can arise from a decision of an administrative authority which cannot be classed either as 'judicial' or as a 'tribunal' and that an authority cannot be given to either of those classifications if it is one which is under no obligation to receive evidence or hear argument."
1 Citers


 
Jean Moreau v Commission EAEC (Rec 1966,P 663) (Nl66-664 D 66-686 I 66-624 En66-459 Dk66-319 Gr66-467 P 66-519) (Judgment) C-15/64; [1966] EUECJ C-15/64
15 Dec 1966
ECJ

European, Administrative
Europa 1. Officials - integration under the state regulations - aims of the relevant provisions (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 2. Officials - contractual servants - application of the staff regulations to such persons - revaluation of post - automatic transfer of the step in the new grade - not permissible - application by analogy of the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 1. The object of article 102 of the staff regulations is to ensure that contractual servants, who are integrated in accordance with the said regulations, keep the position which they previously occupied, by the almost automatic transference to the table set out in article 66 of the staff regulations of the grade and step ' expressly or impliedly ' accorded them before the staff regulations were applied to them. 2. If the post of a contractual servant engaged during the period before the staff regulations entered into force has been revalued by the regulations, the step in the previous grade of that servant, when he is integrated, cannot automatically be transferred to his new grade. In order to determine the step in the new grade the administration must be guided by the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex parte Lain; QBD 1967 - [1967] 2 QB 864; [1967] 2 All ER 770; [1967] 3 WLR 348
 
Durayappah v Fernando [1967] 2 AC 337
1967
PC
Lord Upjohn
Administrative
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 decision. Held: He did not have the necessary standing. Lord Upjohn: "Apart altogether from authority their Lordships would be of the opinion that this was a case where the Minister's order was voidable and not a nullity. Though the council should have been given the opportunity of being heard in its defence, if it deliberately chooses not to complain and takes no step to protest against its dissolution, there seems no reason why any other person should have the right to interfere. [Referrring to Rige v Baldwin] . . . their Lordships can see no reason why any other person, such, for example, as a ratepayer of Brighton should have any right to contend that Mr. Ridge was still the Chief Constable of Brighton. As a matter of ordinary common sense, with all respect to other opinions that have been expressed, if a person in the position of Mr. Ridge had not felt sufficiently aggrieved to take any action by reason of the failure to afford him his strict right to put forward a defence, the order of the watch committee should stand and no one else should have any right to complain." and "Their Lordships therefore are clearly of opinion that the order of the Minister on May 29, 1966, was voidable and not a nullity. Being voidable it was voidable only at the instance of the person against whom the order was made, that is the council. But the council have not complained. The appellant was no doubt mayor at the time of its dissolution but that does not give him any right to complain independently of the council. He must show that he is representing the councilor suing on its behalf or that by reason of certain circumstances, such, for example, as that the council could not use its seal because it is in the possession of the Municipal Commissioner, or for .other reasons it has been impracticable for the members of the council to meet to pass the necessary resolutions, the council cannot be the plaintiff. Had that been shown then there are well-known procedures whereby the plaintiff can sue on behalf of himself and the other corporators making the council a defendant and on pleading and proving the necessary facts may be able to establish in the action that he is entitled to assert the rights of the council. That, however, is not suggested in this case. The appellant sets up the case that as mayor he is entitled to complain but as such he plainly is not. If the council is dissolved, the office of mayor is dissolved with it and he has no independent right of complaint; because he holds no office that is independent of the council. If the mayor were to be heard individually he could only deal with complaints against the council with which ex hypothesi the council itself did not wish to deal. So, accordingly, it seems to their Lordships that on this short ground the appellant cannot maintain this action."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 in re HK (an Infant); QBD 1967 - [1967] 2 QB 617; (1967) 111 Sol Jo 296; [1967] 2 WLR 962; [1967] 1 All ER 226
 
James v Secretary of State for Wales [1968] AC 409; [1967] 1 WLR 171
1968
HL

Administrative, Planning
The land-owner increased the number of caravans on his land. The planning authority alleged there had been a change of use, and issued an enforcement notice. The land-owner challenged its validity. Held: A decision granting or refusing permission after the expiry of the period is valid and effective.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Fonderie Acciaierie Mandelli v ECSC High Authority Fonderie Acciaierie Giovanni Mandelli v Commission of the European Communities C-3/67; [1968] EUECJ C-3/67
8 Feb 1968
ECJ

Administrative
ECJ 1. Measures adopted by an institution - decisions of the high authority - statement of reasons - preparatory inquiries - irrelevant objections - uncertainties due to applicant's own conduct (ECSC treaty, article 15) 2. Assessment to contribution - estimated assessment - powers of the high authority (decision no 13/58 of the high authority of 24 July 1958, article 2; official journal 1958, p.269 decision no 16/58 of the high authority of 24 July 1958, article 15; official journal 1958, p. 275). 1. Cf. Paragraph 1, summary case 36/64, (1965) ECR 329. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary case 2/56, (1957 and 1958) ECR 3. The high authority is under no obligation to communicate all the details of its preliminary investigations, or to make known its views on wholly irrelevant objections. A party cannot plead to its advantage any uncertainties in the high authority's attitude caused by that party's own conduct. 2. Article 12 of decision no 13/58 of the high authority and article 15 of decision no 16/58 of the high authority are designed to enable the high authority, either in the absence of any declaration or where a declaration is incomplete or insufficiently proven, to make good by any suitable means the lack of a declaration or to remedy the omissions or inaccuracies in declarations supplied by undertakings. The powers conferred on the high authority to correct declarations are not distinct from those which it may exercise in the total absence of a declaration.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; HL 14-Feb-1968 - [1968] AC 997; [1968] UKHL 1; [1968] 1 All ER 694; [1968] 2 WLR 924

 
 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission; HL 17-Dec-1968 - [1969] 2 AC 147; [1968] UKHL 6; [1969] 1 All ER 208; [1969] 2 WLR 163
 
Schmidt and Another v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 WLR 337; [1969] 2 Ch 149; [1968] EWCA Civ 1; (1969) 133 JP 274; [1969] 1 All ER 904
19 Dec 1968
CA
Lord Denning MR, Russell, Widgery LJJ
Immigration, Administrative
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 improper reasons. They now appealed against an order striking out their claim. Held: The appeal failed (Russell LJ dissenting). The action was unsustainable. Had there been a duty to act fairly, there was nothing to say that the respondent had not so acted.
Widgery LJ said: " here is some difference of opinion as to the right under the Prerogative to deport aliens already here, but I do not understand it to be said in any way that the opportunity to land initially is one which cannot be refused arbitrarily, and that position is now made clear, if it was not made clear before, by the Aliens Order of 1953. Accordingly, when an alien approaching this country is refused leave to land, he has no right capable of being infringed in such a way as to enable him to come to this Court for the purpose of assistance, and, since he has no kind of right or interest capable of being infringed or affected, the considerations urged by Mr. Hogg could not affect such a case at all. In such a situation the alien's desire to land can be rejected for good reason or bad, for sensible reason or fanciful or for no reason at all. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Registrar General, Ex parte Segerdal [1970] 1 QB 430
1969
QBD
Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth and Cantley JJ
Family, Administrative, Ecclesiastical
The Church of Scientology challenged the refusal of the Registrar General to register its chapel at East Grinstead as a place of meeting for religious worship. Held: The challenge failed.
Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 2
1 Citers


 
Regina v Russell [1969] 1 QB 342
1969

Lord Parker
Administrative


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.