It was sought to prohibit the Assembly from proceeding further with the Prayer Book Measure, 1927. I think that the Church Assembly has no such power, and therefore no such duty.’
Held: In order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to review a decision by means of a prerogative writ, it was necessary to establish that the decision under challenge was made by a decision-maker subject to a duty to act judicially: ‘The question therefore which we have to ask ourselves in this case is whether it is true to say in this matter, either of the Church Assembly as a whole, or of the Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly, that it is a body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially. It is to be observed that in the last sentence of Atkin L .J. the word is not ‘or ‘, but ‘and ‘. In order that a body may satisfy. the required test it is not enough that it should have legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; there must be superadded to that characteristic the further characteristic that- the body has the duty to act judicially. The duty to act judicially is an ingredient which, if the test is to be satisfied, must be present. As these writs in the earlier days were issued only to bodies which without any harshness of construction could be called, and naturally – would be called Courts, so also today these Writs do not issue except to bodies which act or are under the duty to act in a judicial capacity .’
Lord Hewart CJ
[1928] 1 KB 411
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) HL 14-Mar-1963
No Condemnation Without Opportunity For Defence
Ridge, a Chief Constable, had been wrongfully dismissed because he was not given the opportunity of presenting his defence. He had been acquitted of the charges brought against him, but the judge at trial had made adverse comments about his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.653102 br>