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: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Morgan -v- Lloyd [1981] LLR 423
1981

Lord Denning MR
Judicial Review

1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Powis [1981] 1 WLR 584
1981
CA
Dunn LJ
Judicial Review
Material not available to the decision maker should not normally be admitted on an application for a judicial review of that decision. The court described three categories of acceptable new evidence: (1) evidence to show what material was before the tribunal; (2) where the jurisdiction of the tribunal depended "on a question of fact or whether essential procedural requirements were observed", evidence to establish the "jurisdictional fact or procedural error"; (3) evidence to show misconduct (such as bias or fraud) by the tribunal or parties before it.
1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd; HL 9-Apr-1981 - [1982] AC 617; [1981] UKHL 2; [1981] 2 All ER 93; [1981] 2 WLR 722

 
 Cocks -v- Thanet District Council; HL 25-Nov-1981 - [1983] 2 AC 286; [1982] 3 WLR 1121; [1982] 3 All ER 1135; [1981] UKHL 10

 
 Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals); CA 1982 - [1982] 1 WLR 1375

 
 O'Reilly -v- Mackman; HL 1982 - [1983] 2 AC 237; [1982] 3 WLR 1096; [1982] 3 All ER 1124; [1983] UKHL 1
 
In re Poh [1983] 1 WLR 2
1983
HL
Lord Diplock, Lords Fraser of Tullybelton, Keith of Kinkel, Scarman and Roskil
Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Held: "l, decided that on the principle of Lane v. Esdaile the House had no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Their Lordships were "not concerned with the procedure whereby this appeal moved from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal". The case fell within the rule in Lane v. Esdaile [1891] A.C. 210 and the House has no jurisdiction to entertain it."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina -v- British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23; [1983] 1 All ER 241; [1983] ICR 99
1983

Woolf J
Media, Judicial Review, Employment
Prerogative remedies are only available to impugn a decision of a tribunal which is performing a public duty. Judicial review is not applicable in a strict master and servant relationship based on private contract of employment as there is no element of public law involved. Woolf J stressed that there should be no automatic intervention by a civil court to stay other proceedings, and there is no general inhibition upon an employer dismissing an employee in relation to conduct which is also the subject of incomplete criminal proceedings. While the court must have jurisdiction to intervene to prevent serious injustice occurring, it will only do so in very clear cases in which the applicant can show that there is a real danger and not merely notional danger that there would be a miscarriage of justice in criminal proceedings if the court did not intervene.
An employer may by his contract of employment fetter his right to determine the contract by notice or summarily. There ought not be be and there is no longer a fixed rule against specific performance of an employment contract.
1 Citers



 
 Khera -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; HL 10-Feb-1983 - [1983] 2 WLR 321; [1984] 1 AC 74; [1982] UKHL 5; [1983] UKHL 8; [1983] 1 All ER 765; [1982] Imm AR 139

 
 Law -v- National Greyhound Racing Club Limited; CA 29-Jul-1983 - [1983] 1 WLR 1302; [1983] EWCA Civ 6; [1983] 3 All ER 300
 
Davy -v- Spelthorne Borough Council [1984] 1 AC 262; [1983] UKHL 3
13 Oct 1983
HL
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Wilberforce
Planning, Judicial Review
Although section 243(1)(a) provides that the "validity" of an enforcement notice is not to be questioned except as therein provided, the word "validity" is evidently not intended to be understood in its strict sense. It is used to mean merely enforceability. Lord Wilberforce explained the use of the terms 'private law' and 'public law': "The expressions 'private law' and 'public law' have recently been imported into the law of England from countries which, unlike our own, have separate systems concerning public law and private law. No doubt they are convenient expressions for descriptive purposes. In this country they must be used with caution, for, typically, English law fastens, not upon principles but upon remedies. The principle remains intact that public authorities and public servants are, unless clearly exempted, answerable in the ordinary courts for wrongs done to individuals. But by an extension of remedies and a flexible procedure it can be said that something resembling a system of public law is being developed."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Cripps, ex parte Muldoon [1984] 1 QB 68
1984
QBD
Goff LJ
Judicial Review, Elections
C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal. Held: Certiorari would lie. Once the election court had made its order, it was functus officio, and not free to return to its earlier order and amend it under the slip rule. Goff LJ observed that the Court-Martial Appeal Court and the Restrictive Practices Court were simple examples of courts which were not inferior for the purposes of judicial review.
Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Hackney London Borough Council [1984] 1 WLR 592
1984
CA
Dunn LJ
Judicial Review
The court doubted whether the doctrine of issue estoppel is applicable in judicial review proceedings. After holding that on the facts of the case it did not arise as a defence, the court approved, by the way, the judgment at first instance which had been to the effect that issue estoppel did not as a doctrine apply to applications for permission to apply for judicial review; however, there existed a discretion, "in the interests of finality", not to allow issues to be relitigated.
1 Citers



 
 Council for Civil Service Unions -v- Minister for the Civil Service; HL 1984 - [1985] 1 AC 374; [1985] ICR 14; [1984] 3 All ER 935; [1983] UKHL 6; [1984] 3 WLR 1174

 
 Regina -v- Huntingdon District Council, Ex parte Cowan; QBD 1984 - [1984] 1 WLR 501

 
 Regina -v- Inland Revenue Commission ex parte Preston; In re Preston; HL 1984 - [1985] AC 835; [1984] UKHL 5; [1985] BTC 208; [1984] 3 WLR 945; [1985] 2 All ER 327
 
Regina -v- East Berkshire Health Authority, ex Parte Walsh [1984] EWCA Civ 6; [1985] QB 152
14 May 1984
CA
Sir John Donaldson MR, May, Purchas LJJ
Employment, Judicial Review, Natural Justice
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 . . "
1 Cites

1 Citers

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