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.  














Judicial Review - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board -v- Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280
1972

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


 
 Regina -v- Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd; 1974 - [1974] QB 720; [1974] 2 All ER 643; [1974] 2 WLR 805
 
Regina -v- Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Moore [1975] 1 WLR 624
1975
CA
Lord Denning MR
Benefits, Judicial Review
Lord Denning MR observed that the courts should leave the tribunals to interpret the Supplementary Benefits Act in a broad reasonable way, according to the spirit and not the letter. To uphold the purposes of judicial review the "record is generously interpreted".


 
 Secretary of State for Education and Science -v- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council; HL 21-Oct-1976 - [1977] AC 1014; [1976] UKHL 6; [1976] 3 All ER 665; [1976] 3 WLR 641

 
 Pearlman -v- Keepers and Governors of Harrow School; CA 14-Jul-1978 - [1978] 2 EGLR 61; [1978] CLY 2324; [1978] EWCA Civ 5; [1979] QB 56
 
George -v- Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) 77 LGR 689; (1979) 38 P & CR 609; (1979) 250 EG 339
1979
CA
Lord Denning MR, Cumming-Bruce LJ
Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Litigation Practice
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."
Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946
1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2); CA 1979 - [1979] QB 425; [1979] 3 All ER 545; [1979] 1 WLR 1401
 
McWhirter and Wilson -v- Independent Television Authority [1979] SC 351
1979
OHCS

Media, Scotland, Elections, Judicial Review
The Independent Broadcasting Authority in the exercise of its powers under the Act were susceptible to judicial review.
Television Act 1964

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