Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 21 Oct 1976

An authority investigating an application for registration of rights of common over land has an implied duty to ‘take reasonable steps to acquaint (itself) with the relevant information.’ A mere factual mistake has become a ground of judicial review, being described as ‘misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact’.
The House asked what it was for the Secretary of State to be ‘satisfied’ as to a state of affairs: ‘This form of section is quite well known, and at first sight might seem to exclude judicial review. Sections in this form may, no doubt, exclude judicial review on what is or has become a matter of pure judgment. But I do not think that they go further than that. If a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been made upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account.’
Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Salmon, Lord Russell of Killowen
[1977] AC 1014, [1976] UKHL 6, [1976] 3 All ER 665, [1976] 3 WLR 641
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Suffolk County Council Ex Parte Steed and Steed Admn 1995
Judicial review was sought of the Council’s decision to refuse to register a park as a Town or Village Green.
Held: Carnwath J looked at the procedure to be followed by a council receiving an application for registration of commons right: ‘it . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
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 . .
CitedMcDougal, Regina (On the Application of) v Liverpool City Council Admn 22-Jul-2009
Right Questions asked on School Closure
The claimant sought to challenge the respondent’s decision to close a local school. The choice had been made on academic results and the number of vacancies.
Held: The application failed. The Council had complied with its obligation in . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedSave Our Surgery Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts Admn 7-Mar-2013
The claimants sought judicial review of the report prepared by the defendants under which departments providing childrens’ heart surgery at their regional hospital would close. They complained that the consultation had been inadequate and flawed. . .
CitedWhitston (Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 2-Oct-2014
The claimants challenged the selection by the defendant of victims of meselothemia as a group were excluded from entitlement to the recovery of success fees and insurance premiums paid by successful claimants from unsuccessful defendants.
CitedRobson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Salford City Council CA 20-Jan-2015
The appellants, all severely disabled appealed against the refusal of their judicial review of the substantial withdrawal by the Council of a service providing them with transport to local day care facilities. They said that the council had failed . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; Ref: scu.192097