Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston: CA 1986

The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into consideration for the purpose.
Held: When a challenge is made in court to a decision of a public authority, there is an obligation on a respondent public authority to put before the Court the material necessary to deal with the relevant issues. Sir John Donaldstone set out the duty of candour applicable within the developing area of judicial review: ‘This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration . . The analogy is not exact, but just as the judges of the inferior courts when challenged on the exercise of their jurisdiction traditionally explain fully what they have done and why they have done it, but are not partisan in their own defence, so should be the public authorities. It is not discreditable to get it wrong. What is discreditable is a reluctance to explain fully what has occurred and why . . Certainly it is for the applicant to satisfy the court of his entitlement to judicial review and it is for the respondent to resist his application, if it considers it to be unjustified.
But it is a process which falls to be conducted with all the cards face upwards on the table and the vast majority of the cards will start in the authority’s hands.’
Sir John Donaldson MR discussed the dvelopment of administrative law saying: ‘This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration . . The analogy is not exact, but just as the judges of the inferior courts when challenged on the exercise of their jurisdiction traditionally explain fully what they have done and why they have done it, but are not partisan in their own defence, so should be the public authorities. It is not discreditable to get it wrong. What is discreditable is a reluctance to explain fully what has occurred and why . . Certainly it is for the applicant to satisfy the court of his entitlement to judicial review and it is for the respondent to resist his application, if it considers it to be unjustified. But it is a process which falls to be conducted with all the cards face upwards on the table and the vast majority of the cards will start in the authority’s hands.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson MR, Parker LJ

Citations:

[1986] 2 All ER 941

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOffice of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited CA 19-Feb-2004
The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties . .
CitedMarshall and Others v Deputy Governor of Bermuda and Others PC 24-May-2010
marshall_dgPC10
(Bermuda) The claimants challenged their recruitment by conscription to the Bermuda Regiment on several different grounds. The issues now were whether conscription was lawful only where volunters were insufficient, and whether the acceptance of . .
CitedBelize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v The Department of the Environment Belize Electric Company Limited PC 29-Jan-2004
PC (Belize) Lord Walker said: ‘It is now clear that proceedings for judicial review should not be conducted in the same manner as hard fought commercial litigation. A Respondent authority owes a duty to the court . .
CitedDD and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department SIAC 27-Apr-2007
SIAC considered the difficulties particular to the return of nationals to Libya. . .
CitedMT (Algeria) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 30-Jul-2007
The defendants challenged deportation orders made for national security purposes, saying that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should not have taken closed material into account. They argued that if returned to Algeria, they would suffer . .
CitedDinedor Hill Action Association v County of Herefordshire District Council and Another Admn 24-Jul-2008
. .
CitedWilliamson, Re Judicial Review CANI 5-Dec-2008
. .
CitedSugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
CitedRB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v AHK and Others (Practice Note) CA 2-Apr-2009
Sir Anthony Clarke MR gave guidance as to the circumstances in which a special advocate could be appointed, describing the roles of the special advocate representing a party who is not allowed to see closed material: ‘They are well understood and . .
CitedI and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 29-Jun-2010
. .
CitedRegina v Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, ex parte Matson CA 18-Aug-1995
The court considered the need to give reasons for the election of Aldermen. . .
CitedRegina v Arts Council of England ex parte Women’s Playhouse Trust Admn 29-Jul-1997
The Court will not allow cross examination on a witness affidavit in judicial review proceedings save if the evidence has been misleading or materially incomplete. . .
CitedAfolabi v Southwark London Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2003
The claimant applied for leave to bring an action for race discrimination nine years after the acts complained of. Leave was granted. The respondent said the tribunal should have heard the complaint first before deciding to extend time.
Held: . .
CitedCarlyle-Clarke v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 26-Nov-2004
. .
CitedArgos Ltd and Another v Office of Fair Trading CAT 15 CAT 27-May-2005
. .
CitedTweed and Others, Re an Application for Judicial Review CANI 7-Sep-2005
. .
CitedKaras and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Apr-2006
Both claimants sought asylum. Their claims were rejected. They had made representations that they had ‘fresh claims’ in 2001, 2003 and March 2004 but on 10 October 2004, the Secretary of State gave instructions to an airline that the claimants were . .
CitedCelesio Ag v Office of Fair Trading CAT 8-Sep-2006
. .
CitedSecretary of State for Defence v Elias CA 10-Oct-2006
The claimant said that a scheme drawn by the defendant for compensating British civilians interned by the Japanese during the second world war was indirectly discriminatory on racial grounds by requiring a national origin link with the UK. She had . .
CitedCooke, Regina (on the Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 30-Jan-2007
The revenue had required production of the taxpayer’s documents held on his behalf by his solicitors, who now applied for judicial review, claiming the protection of section 20.
Held: The protection given to a taxpayer for documents held by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194049