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: 1998 To: 1998

This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Regina -v- Cheshire County Council ex parte C [1998] ELR 66
1998


Education, Judicial Review

1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1998] Env LR 415
1998
Admn
Laws J
Administrative, Judicial Review
The court considered the need for speedy action in challenging planning decisions, and the need not to wait for the last available day. A review request should be directed at the decision properly under challenge. Laws J held: "In Gooding and Adams there were concrete decisions, not just a "continuing practice", which were undoubtedly susceptible to the judicial review jurisdiction and which on the face of their pleadings the applicants sought to assault. Yet in each case the court held there was delay arising out of the applicants' failure to challenge an earlier executive act or acts. These authorities do not enter into any analysis of the proper construction of Order 53, r.4(1), but as it seems to me they lend implicit support to the approach urged by the respondents, and I would construe the rule accordingly. In my judgment, however, even if Order 53, r.4(1) is to be interpreted more conservatively, so that "the date when grounds . . first arise" is never earlier than the date when the impugned decision is taken, Eurotunnel, Gooding and Adams exemplify a common principle, whose nature is not dependent upon an appeal to the rules relating to delay. It is that a judicial review applicant must move against the substantive act or decision which is the real basis of his complaint. If, after that act has been done, he takes no steps but merely waits until something consequential and dependent upon it takes place and then challenges that, he runs the risk of being put out of court for being too late.[Counsel for the applicant] did not seek to deny that there exists a discretion to refuse leave, or relief, in such a case whether or not it falls within the terms of Order 53, r.4(1) or section 31(6). This is an inevitable function of the fact that the judicial review court, being primarily concerned with the maintenance of the rule of law by the imposition of objective legal standards upon the conduct of public bodies, has to adapt a flexible but principled approach to its own jurisdiction. Its decisions will constrain the actions of elected government, sometimes bringing potential uncertainty and added cost to good administration. And from time to time its judgments may impose heavy burdens on third parties. This is a price which often has to be paid for the rule of law to be vindicated. But because of these deep consequences which touch the public interest, the court in its discretion – whether so directed by rules of court or not – will impose a strict discipline in proceedings before it. It is marked by an insistence that applicants identify the real substance of their complaint and then act promptly, so as to ensure that the proper business of government and the reasonable interests of third parties are not overborne or unjustly prejudiced by litigation brought in circumstances where the point in question could have been exposed and adjudicated without unacceptable damage. The rule of law is not threatened, but strengthened, by such a discipline. It invokes public confidence and engages the law in the practical world. And it is administered, of course, case by case".
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Stoke on Trent County Court ex parte Deborah Ann Mary Wootton-Daws [1998] EWHC Admin 131
2 Feb 1998
Admn

Judicial Review
Leave to bring judicial review refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Stoke on Trent County Court ex parte Deborah Ann Mary Wootton-Daws [1998] EWHC Admin 132
2 Feb 1998
Admn

Judicial Review
Leave to bring judicial review refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Legal Services Ombudsman and Secretary To Office of Legal Services Ombudsman ex parte E [1998] EWHC Admin 220
23 Feb 1998
Admn
Richards J
Legal Aid, Judicial Review

Supreme Court Act 1991 41
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Devon County Council ex parte Violet Cornish [1998] EWHC Admin 232
25 Feb 1998
Admn

Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Ex Parte P Times, 31 March 1998
31 Mar 1998
CA
Staughton LJ
Judicial Review
Where statutory alternative of redress available through ministers discretion, that should be used rather than judicial review: "When both sides agreed that information should be kept from the public that was when the court had to be most vigilant."
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Northumbria Police ex parte Kevin Brown [1998] EWCA Civ 670
8 Apr 1998
CA

Police, Judicial Review
The applicant renewed his application for a judicial review of decisions by the respondent as to his treatment. He had been a police informer, but then moved to Devon for his protection. He became indigent. Held: The order sought would be quite outside the power of the court. Leave refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Harrow Crown Court Ex Perkins; Regina -v- Cardiff Crown Court Ex Parte M (A Minor) Times, 28 April 1998
28 Apr 1998
QBD

Judicial Review
Decision in Crown Court regarding costs or other element of a matter which was formulated in the indictment is a matter relating to the trial and was not subject to judicial review.
Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)

 
Regina -v- Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council Ex Parte Kirkham Gazette, 22 July 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 772
5 May 1998
CA

Environment, Judicial Review
When an application had been made for planning permission for a waste incinerator, a neighbour had a sufficient interest to apply for a judicial review, but the Local Authority was right to pay heed to the Best Practicable Environmental Option requirement.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of an Application By Bradford & Bingley Building Society for Leave To Apply for Judicial Review and Council for Licensed Conveyancers, ex parte Bradford and Bingley Building Society [1998] EWHC Admin 504
8 May 1998
Admn

Legal Professions, Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- District Court Martial Sitting at RAF Lyneham (ex parte SAC Wayne Robert James Stoodley) [1998] EWHC Admin 567; [1998] EWHC Admin 568
20 May 1998
Admn

Armed Forces, Judicial Review
The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea. Held: The divisional court did have power to review a decision of the court to refuse an adjournment. The court should generally complete a hearing after an application is refused, and the defendant should then pursue an appeal. The context of an armed service where the defendant may be posted anywhere at short notice increases the need to avoid adjournments. Nevertheless, and allowing also for the absence of a power of a court martial to grant bail pending an appeal, the submission that the court should in principle be more lothe to interfere in relation to a decision to refuse an adjournment however illegal made by a Court Martial rather than any other legal tribunal, fails.
Air Force Act 1955 69
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Crown Court At Cambridge, ex parte Rld Buckland Times, 17 September 1998; Gazette, 26 August 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 742
13 Jul 1998
Admn

Crime, Administrative, Judicial Review
There is in law no right to appeal to the Crown Court against a Chief Constable's refusal to amend the conditions attached to a firearms certificate. The system of applying such conditions was a discrete and separate system. His only remedy was in judicial review.
Firearms Act 1968 29 44
[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Newbury District Council and Newbury and District Agricultural Society ex parte Chieveley Parish Council; CA 23-Jul-1998 - Times, 10 September 1998; Gazette, 03 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1279; [1999] PLCR 51
 
Regina -v- Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Monsanto Plc Times, 12 October 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 824; [1999] QB 1161
31 Jul 1998
Admn

Judicial Review
The principles which apply generally in claims for interim injunctive relief apply also in judicial review applications. The principle is that the applicant must show an arguable case, The court was not to try the main issues on affidavit. A triable case shown and the balance of convenience was in favour of proceeding.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Chichester Magistrates' Court ex parte Crowther [1998] EWHC Admin 870
8 Sep 1998
Admn

Judicial Review, Magistrates

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Gravesham Justices ex parte Paul Medhurst [1998] EWHC Admin 961
14 Oct 1998
Admn

Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Crown Court At Snaresbrook ex parte Director of Serious Fraud Office Gazette, 18 November 1998; Times, 26 October 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 975; [1998] EWHC Admin 985
16 Oct 1998
Admn

Judicial Review, Criminal Practice
A challenge to a judge's dismissal of cases, or his refusal to stay an indictment in fraud cases transferred from the magistrates Court, should be by judicial review, and not by voluntary bill of indictment. This would give the defendant a chance to be heard.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mensah -v- West Middlesex University Hospital [1998] EWCA Civ 1595
22 Oct 1998
CA

Judicial Review

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina -v- Provincial Court of Church In Wales ex parte Reverend Clifford Williams; Admn 23-Oct-1998 - [1998] EWHC Admin 998
 
Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Nassir [1998] EWCA Civ 1823
23 Nov 1998
CA

Immigration, Judicial Review

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Director General of Telecommunications, Ex P Cellcom Ltd and others Times, 07 December 1998; Gazette, 10 February 1999; [1999] ECC 314
7 Dec 1998
QBD
Lightman J
Commercial, Judicial Review, Licensing
The Director General of Telecommunications can quite properly use his powers and discretion to ensure competition in telecommunications by the granting and withholding of licences. He may take account of economic factors in making such a decision. Section 3 draws a distinction between "means" (namely how the demand is to be met) and "ends" (the satisfaction of reasonable demands) and that as a matter of language, whilst the Director is expressly made the arbiter of the means to the end, he is not so made the arbiter of the ends. Section 3 recognises that there is a public interest in reasonable demands for telecommunication services being met and the court is intended to be the guardian of that public interest. The exercise in deciding whether a demand is reasonable or not requires no sophisticated exercise necessitating the Director’s experience, expertise and fund of knowledge of this and other markets. The court is well equipped and experienced in deciding questions of reasonableness. The duty of the Director was to exercise his functions in the manner which "he considers best calculated to secure… such telecommunications services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them…" and "Where the Act has conferred the decision making and function on the Director, it is for him, and him alone, to consider the economic arguments, weigh the compelling considerations and arrive at a judgment. The . applicants have no right of appeal; in these judicial review proceedings so long as he directs himself correctly in law, his decision may only be challenged on Wedensbury grounds. The court must be astute to avoid the. danger of substituting its views for the decision maker and of contradicting (as in this case) a conscientious decision maker acting in good faith and with knowledge of all the facts. " and "If (as I have stated)the court should be very "slow to impugn decisions of fact made by an expert and experienced decision maker, it must surely be even slower to impugn his educated prophesises and predictions for the future."
Telecommunications Act 1984 3
1 Citers


 
Manchester City Council -v- Cochrane and Cochrane Times, 12 January 1999; Gazette, 03 February 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1967; (1999) 31 HLR 810; [1999] 1 WLR 809
21 Dec 1998
CA
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Judge, Sir John Knox
Housing, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
The tenants held an introductory tenancy under the Act. The council sought possession, after giving notice, and after its review under the Act. The tenants objected, but the Council denied the right of the County Court to hear the objection, arguing that the court had no discretion but to order possession, that the right to appeal review was not a private law right, and the County Court had no jurisdiction in judicial review. Held: The Council's appeal was allowed. The right under an introductory tenancy was only to remain into possession until and unless a possession order was made. An introductory tenant could not raise a defence to a claim for possession when that defence was based on the contentions that (a) there had been no breaches of the tenancy agreement (the substantive ground relied on by the Council for bringing the instant proceedings), (b) the relevant Regulations had not been complied with, and (c) there had been a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice in the conduct of the review by the Panel. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Housing Act 1996 Part V 125(1) 127 128 - Housing Act 1996 125(1) - Introductory Tenants (Review) Regulations 1997 - County Court Act 1984 38(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

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