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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 30 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Regina (Hounslow London Borough Council) -v- School Appeal Panel [2002] EWCA Civ 990; [2002] 1 WLR 3147
2002
CA
May LJ
Education, Judicial Review
There was a hearing before the panel relating to admission of children to particular schools. Held: The proceedings had got "bogged down with questions of legality and the possibility of judicial review". Applications for judicial review in the course of an appeal to an appeal panel were to be discouraged.
1 Citers
ABCIFER -v- Secretary of State for Defence [2002] EWHC 2119
2002
Scott Baker J
Judicial Review, Administrative
1 Citers
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Zeqiri Times, 15 February 2002; [2002] UKHL 3; [2002] Imm AR 296; [2002] ACD 60; [2002] INLR 291
24 Jan 2002
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Hoffmann Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Immigration, Judicial Review, Administrative
The applicant sought to resist an order for his return to Germany, the first country of call after escaping Kosovo. He asserted that Germany was not complying with its international obligations. He said the Gashi case had created a legitimate expectation that he would not be so returned, and that therefore his application for asylum should be considered. Held: The review was refused. In the normal way a decision maker reconsidering a decision will do so in the light of material circumstances then prevailing. The decision in Gashi was not clear cut. The denial of a legitimate expectation is a form of abuse of power. It is broader than what would be an estoppel at private law, and required that a public authority acting contrary to the representation would be acting "with conspicuous unfairness". There were no reasonable grounds for believing the Secretary had made any representation that he felt that Gashi had the effect claimed.
1990 Dublin Convention - Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 2(2) - Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 6
1 Citers
[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
A (a Patient) -v- A Health Authority and Others; In re J (a Child); Regina (S) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another; CA 24-Jan-2002 - Times, 11 March 2002; Gazette, 14 March 2002
Regina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) -v- The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Times, 21 March 2002; Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 20; [2003] 1 FCR 266
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke and Mr Justice Wall
Health, Judicial Review
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review. Held: Judicial review was not the right way to challenge a scientific view. The authority is a public one, and its decisions are subject to review, but only as administrative ones. Scientists might disagree about the decision, but it could not be described as irrational.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Sohaila Kharazmi -v- London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)
11 Feb 2002
Admn
The Honourable Mr Justice Keith
Housing, Judicial Review
The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority's failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing. Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.
National Assistance Act 1948 21 - Housing Act 1996 167
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina (G) -v- Ealing London Borough Council and Others Times, 18 March 2002; Gazette, 25 April 2002; [2002] EWHC 250 (Admin)
28 Feb 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Munby
Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review
Nothing in the new rules prevented the court from allowing cross examination of witnesses in judicial review cases, though the procedure does not lend itself to cases with a high degree of factual debate. The court has a wide discretion, and the Wilkinson case seems to imply this. This applies notwithstanding that Part 54 appeared to contain no provisions authorising cross-examination in judicial review cases
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 8.6 32.1 54.16(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another Times, 16 May 2002
13 Mar 2002
QBD
Justice Mitchell
Education, Judicial Review
A permanently excluded pupil sought judicial review of the decision to exclude him. The school resisted saying that since there remained an avenue of appeal, a judicial review was inappropriate. He could still ask for a review of the decision of the independent appeal panel. Held: Such a decision was of great importance to the child, and it was necessary that the procedure adopted should be fair. Those sitting on the discipline committee served a statutory function, and must fulfil their duties with care and independence. The availability of judicial review would serve to emphasise that duty. There would be no flood of cases because of the tests in Rowlands. Here, however, the defects in the consideration by the committee had been cured by the procedure adopted by the independent appeal panel, and the review was refused.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina (Persey and Others) -v- Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Times, 28 March 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin)
15 Mar 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Human Rights, Administrative, Agriculture, Information, Judicial Review, Media
The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant's human rights. Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way.
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina (Heather and Another) -v- Leonard Cheshire Foundation Times, 08 April 2002; [2002] 2 All ER 936; [2002] EWCA Civ 366
21 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Woolf CJ, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Dyson
Judicial Review, Human Rights, Civil Procedure Rules
The appellants appealed rejection of their application for judicial review. They were long term residents in a nursing home, which the respondents had decided to close. Held: Though the respondent did exercise some public functions, and its activities were in part paid for by public authorities, its activity of providing residential accommodation was not a public function, and its decisions with regard to that activity were not capable of challenge under Human Rights law. Suggestions in the court below that proceedings should not have been by way of judicial review were sterile, and courts should look beyond the form of the application. A local authority respondent should be careful of its statutory obligations, and duties under Human Rights Law, and could not divest itself of obligations by contracting them out.
Civil Procedure Rules 53 54 - National Assistance Act 1948 21(1) 26(1) - Human Rights Act 1998 6 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
In re C (a Child) (Care proceedings: Care plan); Regina (C) -v- Waltham Forest London Borough Council Times, 18 April 2002
28 Mar 2002
Admn
Justice Wilson
Children, Judicial Review, Adoption
An application was made to put a child in care. The local authority created a care plan involving placing the child for adoption with a Jewish family. The mother wanted to have the child placed with long term foster parents, with some continuing contact. The guardian also had reservations about the scheme, because of the different religious background of the proposed adopters. An application for judicial review of the authority's plan was presented. Held: The correct procedure to challenge the care plan, was to make application within the care proceedings. The application for judicial review had added a six month delay. The proposed plan would be approved. The proposed adopters were committed to the child being brought up respectful of her origins.
Local Authority Social Services Act 1970
Regina (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd Times, 23 April 2002
11 Apr 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Keith
Judicial Review
The owners of private mental hospital sought to change the character of one of its wards. A patient sought leave to challenge that change by judicial review, arguing that the hospital served a public function. Held: Although the contracting out of the Heath Authority's functions might not always transfer its public obligations, such obligations might fall on a body such as the respondent in other ways. Here the Regulation imposed a direct statutory duty to provide adequate staff and treatment facilities. The patients had been admitted by compulsion. The hospital exercised a public function in their care, and decisions about that care were susceptible to review.
Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984 (SI 1984 No 1578) 12(1) - Registered Homes Act 1984 - Mental Health Act 1983 3
Tucker, Regina (On the Application of) -v- National Crime Squad [2002] EWHC 832 (Admin); [2003] Po LR 1; [2002] ACD 80
12 Apr 2002
Admn
Harrison J
Police, Judicial Review
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to terminate his secondment to the National Crime Squad. It was said that there had been concerns about his management skills after in investigation into drug related offences by co-officers. The decision was said to be unrelated but subject to matters protected by public interest immunity. Held: The decision was amenable to judicial review but that the Director General of the NCS had acted fairly notwithstanding the absence of reasons for the decision and the lack of opportunity for the Appellant to make representations.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Young, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another [2002] EWHC 844 (Admin)
12 Apr 2002
Admn
Judicial Review, Land
[ Bailii ]
Farrakhan, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 30-Apr-2002 - Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 606; [2002] 3 WLR 481; [2002] QB 1391
Asha Foundation, Regina (on the Application of) -v- The Millennium Commission Times, 06 June 2002; Gazette, 06 June 2002; Gazette, 20 June 2002; [2002] EWHC 916 (Admin)
14 May 2002
Admn
Administrative, Judicial Review
The appellant challenged the decision of the Commission not to award a grant, and alleged that the failure to give reasons for its decision vitiated that decision. Held: The commission was not adjudicating on a question of fact, but making a complex assessment of competing interests. That decision was an exercise of a subjective judgement, and as such was not properly susceptible to judicial review. The commission need not give a detailed explanation of its reason, but need only state the main reason.
National Lottery etc Act 1991 41
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina -v- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another; HL 23-May-2002 - Times, 24 May 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 23; [2002] 1 WLR 1593; [2002] 3 All ER 97
Patrick John Lewin -v- Crown Prosecution Service [2002] EWHC 1049 (Admin)
24 May 2002
Admn
Mrs Justice Hallett
Coroners, Crime, Judicial Review
The applicant sought review of the decision of the respondent not to initiate a prosecution in respect of a death in Spain. The deceased had been left drunk and unconscious in a car in the sun. There was a variance of opinion as to the exact cause of death, but it was said the proposed defendant should not have left him in a car in the hot sun. Held: A decision not to prosecute is susceptible to judicial review, but that should be sparingly exercised. The duty of care assumed by bringing the deceased home in the car could not be extended to care for him afterwards. Application for review dismissed.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina (H) -v- Ashworth Hospital Authority and Others, Regina (Ashworth Hospital Authority) -v- Mental Health Review Tribunal for West Midlands and North West Region and Others Times, 10 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002; Gazette, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 923; [2003] 1 WLR 127; 70 BMLR 40
28 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Dyson
Health, Civil Procedure Rules, Judicial Review
The patient was detained under the Act. The Mental Health Tribunal decided he should be released. The hospital disagreed. The patient continued to reside to the Hospital voluntarily, but the hospital viewed the decision to release him as unreasonable, and detained him further under 5(3). Held: If the hospital authority considered the tribunal's decision unreasonable, it must first apply for judicial review, rather than detain the patient. A second tribunal had since decided how should not be released in any event, but the principle was important. The procedure should be by way of judicial review under rule 54.10. A judicial review decision did re-write history, in setting aside a decision, and therefore the fact that events following the decision had been concluded was no bar. It was therefore equally possible to order a stay under the same procedure.
Dyson L.J. stated that the purpose of a stay in judicial review is clear: "It is to suspend the "proceedings" that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge. It preserves the status quo. This will aid the judicial review process and make it more effective. It will ensure so far as possible, that, if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit of his success. In Avon, Glidewell LJ said that the phrase "stay of proceedings" must be given a wide interpretation so as to apply to administrative decisions. In my view it should also be given a wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in [Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry v. Vehicles and Supplies Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 550] would appear to deny jurisdiction in case A [i.e. where the tribunal ordered discharge, but the order had not yet taken effect because the tribunal directed that the discharge was to be deferred to a specific future date]. That would indeed be regrettable and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review . . [It] is common ground that "proceedings" includes not only the process leading up to the making of the decision itself. The Administrative Court routinely grants a stay to prevent the implementation of a decision that has been made but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried into effect. A good example is where a planning authority grants planning permission and an objector seeks permission to apply for judicial review. It is not, I believe, controversial that, if the court grants permission, it may order a stay of the carrying into effect of the planning permission."
Dyson LJ also discussed the effect of the lack of resources on litigation: "I absolutely reject the submission that reasons which would be inadequate if sufficient resources were available may be treated as adequate simply because sufficient resources are not available. Either the reasons are adequate or they are not and the sufficiency of resources is irrelevant to that question."
Mental Health Act 1983 3 5(3) - Civil Procedure Rules 54.10
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Hopley, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Liverpool Health Authority and others [2002] EWHC 1723 (Admin)
30 Jul 2002
Admn
Pitchford J
Damages, Personal Injury, Judicial Review
The respondent Health Authority had refused to consent to payment to the claimant of damages for personal injury by periodical payments under a with profits structured settlement made under Section 2 of the 1996 Act. Held: The decision was not amenable to judicial review because the function being performed by the Health Authority, as it affected the claimant, was a private one.
Pitchford J set out three elements to be identified when considering whether a public body with statutory powers was exercising a public function amenable to judicial review or a private function that was not. These were:
i) Whether the defendant was a public body exercising statutory powers;
ii) Whether the function being performed in the exercise of those powers was a public or a private one; and
iii) Whether the defendant was performing a public duty owed to the claimant in the particular circumstances under consideration.
Damages Act 1996 2
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
S -v- Airedale National Health Service Trust [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 21; [2003] MHLR 63; Times, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
22 Aug 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Health, Torts - Other, Judicial Review
The patient had been detained, and then secluded within the mental hospital for 11 days. He claimed to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, and false imprisonment. Held: His claim failed. The policy allowed the authority to confine him to a locked room under supervision for the protection of others. The fact of seclusion did not add to the fact that he was already and lawfully confined. A self evidently necessary power could be read into the 1983 Act to permit seclusion. Nevertheless a high degree of scrutiny was appropriate to prevent abuse.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton considered when it might be proper to hear oral evidence on an application for judicial review: "It is a convention of our litigation that at trial in general the evidence of a witness is accepted unless he is cross-examined and is thus given the opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him. There may be an exception where there is undisputed objective evidence inconsistent with that of the witness that cannot sensibly be explained away (in other words, the witness's testimony is manifestly wrong), but that is not the present case. The general rule applies as much in judicial review proceedings as in other litigation, although in judicial review proceedings it is relatively unusual for there to be a conflict of testimony and even more unusual for there to be cross-examination of witnesses."
Mental Health Act 1983 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 5
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Opoku, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Principal of Southwark College and Another Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 14 November 2002; [2002] EWHC 2092 (Admin); [2003] 1 WLR 234
17 Oct 2002
Admn
Lightman J
Judicial Review
The claimant sought permission to add grounds to his application for leave to bring a judicial review. Held: There was no specific rule excluding a court from granting such a rule. Here however there was no change to support any such application, and leave was refused. An appeal from such a refusal lay to the Court of Appeal. The court had a discretion to grant permission, but it should be granted only where there had been some change in circumstances. Such decisions were interlocutory in their nature and not final and therefore not capable of bringing into play the doctrine of res judicata. However a fresh application might be vulnerable to dismissal as an abuse unless new material was advanced in support of it.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs -v- Quark Fishing Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 1409
30 Oct 2002
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Jusice Aldous, Lord Justice Johnathan Parker
Licensing, Agriculture, Judicial Review
Order confirmed. "while for my part I have found nothing to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Secretary of State, the history of this case has demonstrated to my mind that the approach taken to the public decisions that had to be made fell unhappily short of the high standards of fairness and openness which is now routinely attained by British government departments. "
Laws LJ said that there is "a very high duty on public authority respondents, not least central government, to assist the court with full and accurate explanation of all the facts relevant to the issue the court must decide"
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Order 1985 - British Settlements Acts 1887 - British Settlements Acts 1945
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (on the application of Abassi and Another) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another; CA 6-Nov-2002 - Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 06 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; [2002] All ER (D) 70; [2003] UKHR 76
El-Mharraf, Regina (on the Application Of) -v- Westminster City Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1746
11 Nov 2002
CA
Housing, Judicial Review
[ Bailii ]
O'Driscoll -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department, The Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2002] EWHC 2477 (Admin)
22 Nov 2002
Admn
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Pitchers
Police, Judicial Review
[ Bailii ]
Sivasubramaniam -v- Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further & Higher Education and Another; CA 28-Nov-2002 - Gazette, 23 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1738; [2003] 1 WLR 475; [2003] CP Rep 27; [2003] 2 All ER 160
Regina (N) -v- Dr M and Others Times, 12 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1789; [2003] 1 WLR 562; [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 81; (2003) 72 BMLR 81; [2003] 1 FCR 124; [2003] 1 FLR 667; [2003] Fam Law 160
6 Dec 2002
CA
Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Rix, Dyson LJJ
Health, Human Rights, Judicial Review
The patient refused consent to treatment in the form of injection of drugs, which her psychiatrists considered to be necessary. Held: Treatment of this nature infringed the patients rights, and was not to be ordered without clear reason. The doctors had to show that it was a medical necessity, and this had to be shown convincingly. The standard of proof was high, though not the criminal standard. To comply with Human Rights law, they also had to show that it was in her best interests. This is a wider test than medical necessity. Despite the applicant's own expert's opinion, the standard of proof had been reached in this case.
Dyson LJ said that cross-examination in judicial review cases should be ordered only if it is necessary to enable the court to determine factual issues for itself.
European Convention on Human Rights 3 - Mental Health Act 1983 58(3)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina (DR) (AM) -v-Head Teacher of St George's Catholic School, Governing Body of St George's Catholic School, Independent School, Regina (A) -v- Kingsmead School Governors and Another Times, 19 December 2002
13 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Simon Brown
Education, Judicial Review
The applicants appealed the refusal of judicial review of the refusals of their appeals against exclusion from school. Held: The Act provided a full appeal procedure from the initial decision of the school's head teacher, first to the governors, and then to an independent appeal panel. They argued that Rowlands established that a right to a judicial review of an earlier decision survived a fairly conducted appeal against that decision. Held: The Rowlands case applied only where a possibility of an appeal remained. A closer case was McMahon. The court must look at the statutory scheme as a whole. Where an early defect was capable of being cured by the later appeals, it must be rare (perhaps as in Calvin) for any right of review to survive.
1 Cites
1 Citers
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament -v- The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Others; QBD 17-Dec-2002 - Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
