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: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Henderson Unreported, November 1992
1992
CACD

Crime, Administrative
The British authorities had, over a period of time, failed to enforce restrictions on the export of military equipment to Iraq and had known that such material was being exported to Iraq via Jordan. The prosecution of the defendant for breach of the regulations collapsed rather than have papers disclosed to the court. Ministers had signed public interest immunity certificates which, if accepted by the trial court, would have prevented disclosure of the equivocal role which the authorities had played.

 
West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385
1992
SCS
Lord President (Hope)
Scotland, Administrative
The court asked what was to be considered to be truly an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. Held: Lord President (Hope): "The public or private nature of the inferior body or tribunal is not decisive, nor is it necessary to enquire whether the decision of the inferior body or tribunal is administrative in character. The essential point is that a decision-making function has been entrusted to that body or tribunal which it can be compelled by the court to perform. As counsel for the respondent pointed out, the tripartite relationship in these arrangements is significant. The essential feature of all these cases is the conferring, whether by statute or private contract, of a decision-making power or duty on a third party to whom the taking of the decision is entrusted but whose manner of decision-making may be controlled by the court."
The competency of an application to the supervisory jurisdiction "does not depend upon any distinction between public law and private law, nor is it confined to those cases which English law has accepted as amenable to judicial review...".
1 Citers


 
Lonrho plc v Tebbit [1992] 4 All ER 280
1992
CA

Administrative, Negligence
The company became involved in a takeover bid. It was referred to the Monopolies Commision, and the buyer undertook not to increase his shareholding pending the report. In the meantime another buyer acquired a majority shareholding. The buyer had not been released from his undertaking even though it had been found that his proposed take-over would not be contrary to the public interst. The buyer had therefore been prevented from acquiring a majority interest and claimed damages in negligence from the defendant Secretary of State. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. Held: The buyer had a clear private interest in being released from his undertaking immediately it became unnecessary, and the defendant owed a duty in private law to him to exercise reasonable care. The claim in private law was properly commenced by writ.
1 Cites


 
Regina v Darling (Wreck Commissioner) Ex Parte Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd; Similar Gazette, 08 January 1992
8 Jan 1992
QBD

Costs, Administrative, Transport
No costs order should normally be made in favour of the relatives of the deceased seamen, following an enquiry by the Wreck Commissioner, save only in cases of hardship. The responsibility for ship safety is a matter of proper concern to ship-builders as well as regulators. The Commissioner having considered all those points which he was obliged to do, his decision was not to be faulted.

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

Pill J
Administrative, Judicial Review
The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the local authority to terminate his stallholder's licence. The parties had agreed that a sufficient element of public law was involved to give the court jurisdiction to review the decision. Held: It was not open to the parties to create jursidiction for the court. No sufficient element of public law was involved and a review was refused.
1 Citers


 
Pfeifer And Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; 10802/84; [1992] ECHR 2
25 Feb 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice
Two of the judges who had acted in Mr Pfeifer’s case also presided at his trial, despite a clear provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure disqualifying them. The Commission dealt with whether the court was ‘established by law’ separately from whether it was ‘impartial’ and held that it was not. The Court held that the two complaints coincided: the court was not established by law because of the disqualification which national law had imposed so as to remove all reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of trial courts. Hence there was a breach of Article 6(1) (and there had not been an effective waiver of the applicant’s rights). In order to be effective, a waiver must be made without undue compulsion, and the consent must be an informed one. Regard must be had to the character or nature of the right when a decision is made as to whether the person was given sufficient information about that right for him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he should waive it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Airedale NHS Trust v Bland; FD 19-Nov-1992 - [1993] 2 WLR 316

 
 Regina v Harrow London Borough Council Ex Parte Carter; QBD 25-Nov-1992 - Gazette, 25 November 1992; (1992) 26 HLR 32

 
 Regina v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan; CA 4-Dec-1992 - [1993] 1 WLR 909

 
 Airedale NHS Trust v Bland; CA 9-Dec-1992 - [1993] 2 WLR 316
 
Williams v Court of Auditors of the European Communities T-33/91; [1992] EUECJ T-33/91
10 Dec 1992
ECFI

European, Administrative
ECJ 1. The action before the Court, even if formally directed against the rejection of the official' s complaint, has the effect of bringing before the Court the decision adversely affecting the applicant against which the complaint was submitted. 2. The fact that in the staff reports, under the heading "Knowledge required for post occupied", two officials occupying comparable posts receive identical assessments even though only one of them has specific training corresponding to the duties performed does not, in the absence of other factors, constitute proof of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The evaluation of the knowledge required for the post occupied calls for a specific assessment, taking account of all the actual knowledge of the official concerned, in particular his specific knowledge corresponding to the post which he occupies, not an abstract assessment of the level of his training, purely in terms of his qualifications and diplomas. 3. It is not for the Court to determine whether the assessment made by the administration in the context of a staff report of the occupational ability of an official is well founded when it involves complex value judgments which, by their very nature, are not capable of objective proof. However, the Court is required to carry out a review concerning any irregularities of form or procedure, manifest errors of fact vitiating the assessments made by the administration and any misuse of power. 4. The freedom of trade union activity recognized under Article 24a of the Staff Regulations means not only that officials have the right without hindrance to form associations of their choosing, but also that those associations are free to do anything lawful to protect the interests of their members as employees, in particular by means of bringing court proceedings. Furthermore, the Community institutions, and the bodies treated as such for the application of the Staff Regulations of Officials by virtue of Article 1 thereof, must refrain from doing anything which might impede the freedom of trade union activity recognized by Article 24a of the said regulations. 5. Where an internal directive of an institution concerning the reports procedure, such as a guide to staff reports, provides that the official assessed must be put in a position to state his point of view regarding all the information on the basis of which the appeal assessor adopts his final decision, a reports procedure in which that rule has been disregarded is irregular and the staff report subsequently adopted must be annulled.
[ Bailii ]
 
Heinz-Jorg Moritz v Commission of the European Communities C-68/91; [1992] EUECJ C-68/91P
17 Dec 1992
ECJ

European, Administrative
ECJ (Judgment) 1. The periodic report constitutes an indispensable criterion of assessment each time the official' s career is taken into consideration by the administration and a promotion procedure is tainted with irregularity in so far as the appointing authority has not been able to consider the comparative merits of the candidates because there has been a substantial delay on the part of the administration in drawing up the periodic reports of one or more of them. It does not follow that all the candidates must be at exactly the same stage regarding the state of their periodic reports when the appointment decision is taken or that the appointing authority must postpone its decision if the most recent report on one or other of the candidates is not yet final because it has been referred to the appeal assessor or to the Joint Committee. In exceptional circumstances the absence of a periodic report may be compensated for by the existence of other information on an official' s merits. 2. If, in dismissing a plea by an official contesting the legality of a promotion procedure on the ground that the appointing authority assessed his merits in the absence of his periodic report and on the basis of a hearing of his Director-General at which he was not heard, the Court of First Instance merely holds that that hearing did not make that procedure unlawful but does not mention the reasons justifying recourse to information other than the periodic report or the reasons why hearing the Director-General was sufficient to compensate for the absence of that periodic report, it has failed to state sufficient reasons for its judgment. 3. It is for the Court of First Instance to respond to the pleas and claims as they were raised before it by the parties. It does not fulfil that obligation where it rejects a claim for compensation on the ground that a claim based on the same allegedly wrongful conduct of the administration was dismissed by a judgment given in another case between the same parties when the two claims are not identical, in so far as they are based on separate causes of damage, namely the fault consisting in the appointment of a candidate following an irregular promotion procedure, on the ground that the appointing authority assessed the respective merits of the candidates in the absence of the appellant' s periodic report, and the fault consisting in the fact that the periodic report in question was drawn up late by the appointing authority.
[ Bailii ]
 
Tiziano Di Rocco v Economic and Social Committee T-8/92; [1992] EUECJ T-8/92
18 Dec 1992
ECFI

European, Administrative
1. The decision by which the appointing authority decides to close without further action disciplinary proceedings does not constitute an act adversely affecting the official against whom the proceedings were initiated within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, since the operative part of such a decision is not capable of altering the legal situation of that official. 2. The powers of the appointing authority in disciplinary matters permit it only to order one of the measures provided for in Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations or to close the disciplinary proceedings without ordering a disciplinary measure, regardless of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which in any event is not binding on the appointing authority. 3. When, under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, the question of the admissibility of an action for damages is being examined, a distinction must be drawn between two types of cases. Where the claims for damages are closely linked to an action for annulment, the inadmissibility of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the action for damages. If there is no close link between the two actions, the admissibility of the claims for damages must be assessed separately from that of the action for annulment and is subject, in particular, to the pre-litigation procedure provided for under Articles 90 and 91 having been properly carried out. In that connection, where an action for damages is seeking redress for harm suffered as a result of an act which adversely affected the official, it is for the person concerned to lodge, within the prescribed period, a prior administrative complaint against that act, and then to bring an action within a period of three months from the date on which the complaint is rejected. Conversely, if the alleged harm has resulted from conduct which, since it had no legal effects, cannot be characterized as acts adversely affecting the official, the pre-litigation procedure must begin with a request for compensation. Only an express or implied rejection of that request constitutes a decision adversely affecting the official against which a complaint may be directed, and it is only after a decision rejecting, expressly or impliedly, that complaint that an action for damages may be brought before the Court of First Instance.
[ Bailii ]
 
Lilian R Khouri v Commission of the European Communities (Rec 1992,p II-2637) T-85/91; [1992] EUECJ T-85/91
18 Dec 1992
ECFI

European, Administrative
1. Where the application of a rule of the Staff Regulations depends on the application of a legal rule applying in the legal system of one of the Member States, it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice and proper application of the Staff Regulations that the review by the Court of First Instance should also extend to an examination of the way in which the appointing authority of a Community institution has interpreted the national law of one of the Member States. 2. Under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the treatment, as a dependent child, of a person whom an official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure constitutes an exceptional step. The condition that the official must have a legal responsibility to maintain a person other than a dependent child must for that reason be interpreted strictly. The concept of "a legal responsibility to maintain" used in the Staff Regulations is derived from the legal systems of the Member States, which, under their laws, impose a mutual obligation to provide maintenance on relatives by blood and/or marriage of a greater or lesser degree of proximity. That concept must therefore be understood as referring exclusively to an obligation of maintenance imposed on an official by a source of law independent of the will of the parties and as excluding maintenance obligations of a contractual, moral or compensatory nature. Since neither Community law nor the Staff Regulations provide the Community court with any guide as to how it should define, by way of independent interpretation, the meaning and scope of the concept of a legal responsibility to maintain entitling an official to receive a dependent child allowance under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, it is necessary to determine whether the national legal system to which the official in question is subject imposes such a responsibility on the official. 3. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of de?ermining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. In the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.