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. Â
Administrative - From: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Â
 Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte United States Tobacco International Inc; CA 1991 - [1992] QB 353; [1991] 3 WLR 529; [1992] 1 All ER 212
Â
Regina v General Council of the Bar ex parte Percival [1991] 1 QB 212
1991
Administrative, Legal Professions
The Bar Council was amenable to judicial review for an alleged failure to comply with its own Professional Conduct Committee Rules (annexed to the Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales) even though neither the Code of Conduct nor the Professional Conduct Committee Rules had any statutory underpinning.
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310; [1992] ICR 816
1991
CA
Donaldson LJ
Employment, Administrative
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 the kind of error [by way of judicial review] which would entitle the court to intervene” then the reasoning may have to be disclosed. Donaldson LJ said: “when a statute has conferred on any body the power to make decisions affecting individuals, the court will not only require the procedure prescribed by statute to be followed, but will readily imply so much and no more to be introduced by way of additional procedural standards as will ensure the attainment of fairness."
The fact that leave to apply for judicial review has been granted calls for some reply from a pulic authority respondent. Once a public law court had concluded that there was an arguable case that a decision was unlawful, the court was entitled to be given the reasons for the decision. Lord Donaldson drew a further distinction between the legal duty on a public authority to provide an individual with reasons for a decision and the duty to provide a court with reasons for the authority's conduct. Breach of the former duty can lead to the quashing of the decision without more. Failure to observe the latter can lead to the court drawing inferences adverse to the public authority, but it will not necessarily do so.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362; [1991] 4 All ER 638
1991
PC
Administrative
An Indian temple having a legal persona recognised in India may assert rights and make claims under English Law. Even though it would not be recognised as a litigant if based in England and Wales, it was nonetheless entitled, in accordance with the principle of comity of nations, to sue in England.
The court considered the approach to be taken where there was conflicting evidence as to foreign law. The court must resolve differences in the same way as in the case of other conflicting evidence as to facts. It is not permissible to reject uncontradicted expert evidence unless it is patently absurd.
1 Citers
Â
Regina v Registrar General, ex parte Smith [1992] 2 QB 393; [1991] 2 All ER 88
1991
CA
Sir Stephen Brown, Staughton LJ, McCowan LJ
Administrative
The applicant was detained in Broadmoor, having been convicted of murder in 1977 and of manslaughter in 1980. He suffered from serious mental instability and psychosis The second killing was of a fellow prisoner whom he believed to be his adoptive mother. From Broadmoor he applied to the Registrar General for access to his birth records. Held: Sir Stephen Brown (President): "It is clear that the facts . . are wholly exceptional. I do not believe that Parliament intended to provide an absolute right to the relevant information 'come what may'. It was sufficient to disentitle a prisoner from exercising his on its face absolute right to inspect his birth certificate that there was a current and justified apprehension of a significant risk that he might in the future use the information thereby obtained to commit a serious crime."
Staughton LJ considered the rule of ex turpi causa non oritur actio: "The rule is that we must interpret Acts of Parliament as not requiring performance of duties, even when they are in terms absolute, if to do so would enable someone to benefit from his own serious crime." and
'a principle that statutory duties, although apparently absolute, will not be enforced if performance of them would enable a person to commit serious crime or to cause serious harm is fraught with difficulty ... Nevertheless, I am persuaded that some such principle exists.'. And
For present purposes, it is sufficient to hold that a statutory duty is not to be enforced if there is a significant risk that to do so would facilitate crime resulting in danger to life. Parliament is presumed not to have intended that, unless it has said so in plain terms. That is as far as I would go in this case. Even so, I fear that other cases may require elucidation.'
McCowan LJ: '... the correct formulation of the public policy in this context is that the adopted person will not be permitted to exercise his right ... if there is current and justified apprehension of a significant risk that he might in the future use the information obtained to commit a serious crime.' and
'What Parliament must be taken to have intended is that [the Registrar General] should obey public policy as found by the court to exist at the time the matter comes before it. It is not for the Registrar General to weigh up the public interest as against the interests and wishes of the applicant. It is for her only to discover the facts and for the court, as guardian of public policy, to decide whether the Registrar General is justified in withholding the information from the applicant.'"
Adoption Act 1976 51(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte T C Coombs and Co; HL 1991 - [1991] 2 AC 283; [1991] 2 WLR 682; [1991] 3 All ER 623
Â
Re Cedac Ltd [1991] Ch 402
1991
CA
Balcombe LJ, Leggatt LJ
Company, Administrative, Natural Justice
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.
Company Director Disqualification Act 1986 7(2) 16(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind; HL 7-Feb-1991 - [1991] 1 AC 696; [1991] 2 WLR 588; [1991] UKHL 4; [1991] 1 All ER 720
Â
Tagaras v Court of Justice T-18/89; [1991] EUECJ T-18/89
7 Feb 1991
ECFI
Administrative
(Rec 1991,p II-53) 1. In a case where reclassification is requested the decision appointing a person as a probationary official - which must be in writing, must have been taken by the appointing authority, must specify the date on which the appointment takes effect, and must assign the official to a post - is to be seen as the act adversely affecting the official. That is the decision which defines the duties for which the official has been appointed and definitively fixes the corresponding grade.
2. The principle of legal certainty, which forms part of Community law, requires that every measure of the administration having legal effects must be clear and precise and must be drawn to the attention of the person concerned in such a way that he can ascertain exactly the time at which the measure comes into being and starts to produce its legal effects, particularly as regards the period allowed for bringing an action to challenge it.
3. Although an official is entitled to request the appointing authority to reconsider his classification, in order to encourage an amicable settlement of the dispute between himself and the administration by allowing the administration to review its position, that option does not have the effect of allowing him to set aside the time limits laid down in the Staff Regulations for lodging a complaint and for applying to the Court.
An application lodged before the expiry of the period allowed for a reply to the complaint against the implied decision of rejection is premature and hence inadmissible.
4. The appointing authority has a wide discretion, within the limits laid down by the second paragraph of Article 32, to allow additional seniority in step on recruiting an official, in order to take account of the training and previous experience of the person concerned, both as regards the nature and the duration of that experience and its relationship, be it close or otherwise, to the requirements of the post to be filled.
The training and special experience in question should be appraised as at the time of appointment as a probationary official.
5. There is a breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations when two categories of person whose factual and legal circumstances disclose no essential difference are treated differently at the time of their recruitment
The same is true where situations which are different are treated in an identical manner
[ Bailii ]
Â
 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame; ECJ 25-Jul-1991 - C-221/89; [1991] EUECJ C-221/89; [1991] ECR I-3905
Â