Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 26 May 2000

The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a reasonable period, and asserted that any claim must be by way of judicial review. The defendant appealed and lost the case in the Court of Appeal, and appealed again.
Held: It was possible for a citizen to claim by way of summons sums due to him after the confiscation of his handguns, where the delay became unreasonable. There was no need to begin such proceedings by judicial review where the issue was not so much a decision, but rather the failure to deliver a statutory requirement within a reasonable time. Payment for scheduled types of handguns could be made within 30 days, and for guns which required individual valuation, 60 days was reasonable.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf M.R. Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 26-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 32, [2000] 3 All ER 226, [2000] 1 WLR 1169

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, Firearms Act 1968 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSteed v Secretary of State for Home Office CA 1-May-1998
The plaintiff claimed compensation after surrendering his firearm and ammunition. There had been a long delay in processing the claim, and he sued. The Home Office entered a defence denying that there was any obligation to process claims within a . .
CitedRye, Henson and J B Trustees Limited Trustees of Dennis Rye Pension Fund v Sheffield City Council and Frederick Henson and Rye (the Trustees of the Dennis Rye 1992 Grandchildren Settlement Fund) v Sheffield City Council CA 31-Jul-1997
Courts must not get tied up in public law/private law judicial review or other arguments when remedies and results provided by both jurisdictions are similar. The guidelines set down involved: ‘not only considering the technical questions of the . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .
CitedCocks v Thanet District Council HL 25-Nov-1981
The applicant had been given temporary accomodation under the Act. He sought to enforce the obligation on the respondent to house him permanently by an action in the county court. The authority said the action should have been by judicial review. . .
CitedMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another HL 10-Feb-1995
The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. . .
CitedRoy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee HL 6-Feb-1992
The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff’s GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be . .

Cited by:

CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89525

Stevenage Borough Football Club Ltd v The Football League Ltd: ChD 1 Aug 1996

The Football League is a body subject to judicial review, since it exercises its control over members in the public interest.

Citations:

Times 01-Aug-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromStevenage Borough Football Club Limited v Football League Limited CA 6-Aug-1996
Unfair changes to the rules for the promotion of sports clubs between leagues could not be challenged retrospectively after the team in question had impliedly accepted the rules. An injunction granted may within a sporting league context have unfair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89547

Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (No 2): CA 1990

An ex parte Mareva injunction had been obtained. It was said that there had been material non-disclosure of important facts. The plaintiff bank had been under the control of the Galadaris between 1970 and 1985, when it was taken over by the Government of Dubai. The bank complained that large amounts of interest on certain deposits had been unlawfully diverted into their own pockets. The bank obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and ancillary orders for disclosure of assets, but this was later discharged by Morritt J. on the grounds that important facts known to the Government of Dubai had not been disclosed.
Held: The court refused to interfere with his exercise of his discretion. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that even where there had been non-disclosure on an ex parte application, the court should only discharge an injunction or refuse to continue an injunction if the court was satisfied that the non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or a wilful failure to inquire as to the obvious. The phrase ‘whose . . affidavits’ extends to any affidavit sworn by a deponent who is not a party, but which is procured by and filed or used on behalf of a party. A copy of an unprivileged document does not become privileged merely because the copy is made for litigious purposes.
Dillon LJ said: ‘It is now accepted in this Court that, even if there has been material non-disclosure, the Court has a discretion whether or not to discharge an order obtained ex parte and a discretion whether or not to grant fresh injunctive relief Discharge of the order is not automatic on any non-disclosure being established of any fact known to the applicant which is found by the Court to have been material.’
Staughton LJ said that the bank had put forward a good arguable case, and a prima facie case for likelihood of dissipation: ‘In any event there was also non-disclosure to be considered before the injunction was continued. The authorities show plainly that non-disclosure will, in an appropriate case, not only be a ground for discharging an ex parte order, but also a ground for refusing to make a fresh order inter partes. At least in one respect there was here non-disclosure which was in my view both serious and culpable. The Galadaris had specified what they said was their defence to the claim, and there can scarcely be any more important topic of disclosure than that. As to culpability, it is said the Dubai Bank did not know the facts, and that those whom they consulted in the Government of Dubai had forgotten them. But the letters were still in the Government’s possession . . Once serious and culpable non-disclosure was established, the Judge had a balancing task to perform. On the one hand if justice required that a fresh injunction should be granted (which in the Judge’s view it did not, but the contrary was arguable), it might be thought unjust to refuse one on the grounds of non-disclosure. On the other hand the Courts must uphold and enforce the duty of disclosure, as a deterrent to others, if they are not to be deceived on ex parte applications. The conflict between those principles is well illustrated in a passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf in the Behbehani case.’

Judges:

Slade LJ, Dillon LJ

Citations:

[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120

Statutes:

RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
See AlsoDubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
CitedExpandable Ltd and Another v Rubin CA 11-Feb-2008
The defendant’s witness statement referred to a letter written to him by the defendant’s solicitor. The claimant appealed refusal of an order for its disclosure.
Held: The appeal failed. The letter was protected by legal professional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.247440

Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child): Admn 20 Oct 2000

The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to a local authority to refuse to contribute to a child’s travelling expenses to a school named in his statement, on the basis that he might attend another school nearby which was not named as appropriate in his statement of special educational needs, or to make attendance conditional upon an agreement regarding payment by the parents of travelling expenses. The council’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable since they had failed to consider the changes in the child’s transport needs since the statement was made, and the parents’ financial circumstances. Any bar to a judicial review operated against the parents not the child. ‘the matter must go back to the authority which must reconsider its decision giving proper consideration to all the changes of circumstances and not taking into account of its belief that G.A.’s needs could be met at a local school not named in the statement.’

Judges:

Jack Heatson QC

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509

Citing:

CitedRegina v London Borough of Havering ex parte ‘K’ Admn 20-Aug-1997
A statement of special education needs stated in Part IV that the child’s mother was to be responsible for providing transport at her own expense. She subsequently became unable to maintain the transport provision due to her personal circumstances . .
CitedSurrey County Council v Ministry of Education 1953
The council had a scheme whereby for those who lived more than the walking distance from a school, only transport from their homes to the walking distance would be free. The scheme failed because transport has to be to and from school. A local . .
CitedRegina v Devon County Council, ex parte George HL 1989
A child lived 2.8 miles from school. The journey was rural and unlit. Whe he was 8, the education authority withdrew free transport saying it was practicable for a parent to walk with him.
Held: The decision whether to offer support was that . .
CitedRegina v East Sussex County Council Ex Parte T QBD 29-Apr-1997
Financial constraints on a local authority may be is relevant as between a choice of provisions but not as to whether to make provision at all. The court is not the arbiter of what constitute suitable arrangements and the decision as to suitability . .
CitedRobert Duhaney White v London Borough of Ealing and Special Educational Needs Tribunal Admn 8-Jul-1997
Gilliatt The court heard three separate appeals from decisions of SENTs where parents wished their autistic children to attend the Boston Higashi School, USA which involved a residential placement. Fees to attend . .
CitedJenkins v Howells KBD 1949
A pupil had been continuously away from school because her mother was a chronic invalid and it was necessary for the girl to assist with housework. When the mother was prosecuted pursuant to the Act, she contended that her daughter’s absence was the . .
CitedRe C (a minor) CA 1994
The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88513

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway: HL 8 Nov 2000

Where the Court of Appeal had refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge’s decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3), Access to Justice Act 1999 54, Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000), Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3

Citing:

CitedPractice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) CA 1982
The Court gave a practice direction on recourse to the Court of Appeal following refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by a Divisional Court or a single judge, describing such a refusal as ‘appealable to the Court of Appeal’. . .
CitedPractice Direction (Court of Appeal) (Civil Division) CA 19-Apr-1999
As part of the modernisation and reform of civil procedure, all the principal Court of Appeal practice directions are consolidated now into this one document handed down by the court.
‘2. Permission to appeal
2.1 When is permission . .
CitedLane v Esdaile HL 5-May-1891
The court considered the extent of the House’s jurisdiction as an appellate court. Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided that an appeal should lie to the House of Lords from ‘any order or judgment of . . Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England’. The . .
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
CitedIn re Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, Ex parte Stevenson CA 1892
A party had applied to a judge for what in effect amounted to leave to appeal and had been refused.
Held: Wherever power is given to a legal authority to grant or refuse leave to appeal, the decision of that authority is, from the very nature . .
CitedIn re Poh HL 1983
The applicant had unsuccessfully applied to the Divisional Court for leave to apply for judicial review and renewed his application, equally unsuccessfully, to the Court of Appeal. He then petitioned for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

Cited by:

See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway; Re Blackspur Group (No 3), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Davies and Others (No 2) CA 13-Sep-2001
. .
See AlsoEastaway v The United Kingdom ECHR 20-Jul-2004
The applicant had been proceeded against after the collapse of companies in which he was involved with very substantial debts. The proceedings had begun in July 1990, and lasted nearly nine years.
Held: Where proceedings could be expected to . .
See AlsoIn Re Blackspur Group Plc; Secretary of State v Eastaway ChD 21-Jun-2001
The director was amongst a group against whom a director disqualification order was sought. He offered an undertaking, but the Secretary of State refused to accept this unless it was accompanied by a statement as to the factual basis on which it was . .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 10-May-2007
The applicant had been subject to company director disqualification proceedings. Eventually he gave an undertaking not to act as a company director, but then succeeded at the ECHR in a complaint of delay. He now sought release from his undertaking . .
CitedCooper v HM Attorney General QBD 30-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages from the court saying that it had failed to properly apply European law. It had rejected his applications for judicial review.
Held: Any failure by the court was not sufficiently manifest to bring the case within . .
CitedCoke-Wallis, Regina (on The Application of) v Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales SC 19-Jan-2011
The appellant chartered accountant had been convicted in Jersey after removing documents from his offices relating to a disputed trust and in breach of an order from his professional institute. The court now considered the relevance and application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85546

Regina v Bow County Court Ex parte Pelling: QBD 8 Mar 1999

Mr Pelling sought to act as a McKenzie friend. On being refused he sought judicial review of he decision to exclude him.
Held: Review was refused. A McKenzie friend has himself no locus to challenge a decision by a county court judge not to allow him to be present in a chambers appointment; that right belongs to the litigant only. A judge in chambers can exclude a McKenzie friend, but not when in open court.

Judges:

Otton LJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

CitedCollier v Hicks 7-Jun-1831
Trespass for assaulting, and turning plaintiff out of a police office. Plea, that two of the defendants, being justices of the peace, were assembled in a police office to adjudicate upon an information against AB for an offence against a penal . .
CitedMcKenzie v McKenzie CA 10-Jul-1970
Mr McKenzie was a litigant in person who wished to be assisted by a young Australian barrister, gratuitously, in the conduct of his case by sitting beside the husband in Court and prompting him. The hearing was in open Court . The friend’s conduct . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
CitedRe G (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie friend) CA 10-Jul-1991
A proposed McKenzie friend was a solicitor who was to be paid, but did not wish to be on the record. H appealed a refusal to allow him to be present in chambers. The Judge had taken the view that the proceedings were of a highly confidential nature . .
Not bindingIn Re H (A Minor) (Chambers Proceedings: Mckenzie Friend) CA 6-May-1997
A father sought ex parte, permission to appeal against orders in the county court. The first had refused to allow him to have a McKenzie friend in an application for contact to his daughter. The Recorder had taken the view that because the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Bow County Court, Ex Parte Pelling CA 17-Dec-1999
Access to the court given to a McKenzie Friend should normally be given in matters in open court, but when it came to matters being heard in chambers, the judge had discretion as to who he would hear. The right is in any event that of the litigant, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85131

Mercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another: HL 10 Feb 1995

The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. The purpose of the rule of procedural exclusivity was stated to be prevention of an abuse of the process of the court, and that purpose is of prime importance in determining the reach of the general rule.
Lord Slynn said: ‘The recognition by Lord Diplock that exceptions exist to the general rule may introduce some uncertainty but it is a small price to pay to avoid the over-rigid demarcation between procedures reminiscent of earlier disputes as to the forms of action and of disputes as to the competence of jurisdictions apparently encountered in civil law countries where a distinction between public and private law has been recognised . . The experience of other countries seems to show that the working out of this distinction is not always an easy matter. In the absence of the single procedure allowing all remedies-quashing, injunctive and declaratory relief, damages-some flexibility as to the use of different procedures is necessary. It has to be borne in mind that the overriding question is whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

Independent 16-Feb-1995, Times 10-Feb-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 48, [1995] UKHL 12, [1996] 1 All ER 575, [1995] CLC 266, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 39

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
CitedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:

Appealed toMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another CA 3-Aug-1994
Parties having contracted to resolve differences by an agreed procedure, could not go back on that agreement. The court will not replace an agreement for a resolution method chosen by parties with own advice and freely. . .
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
CitedSteed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
CitedValentines Homes and Construction Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Mar-2010
The claimant had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant to seek to recover a debt from them. The issue had however been settled in the County Court. Costs were ordered against them, and they now appealed. In a small company the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83655

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman: QBD 2008

The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it.

Citations:

[2008] 1 WLR 2171

Cited by:

CitedKenya Aid Programme v Sheffield City Council Admn 22-Jan-2013
The claimant challenged a decision that it was liable for non domestic rates in respect of some commercial units, on the basis that the use by the charity was not itself charitable.
Held: ‘there is no reason for limiting the ambit of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567244

Ealing Corporation v Jones: CA 1959

An enforcement notice served by the local planning authority was quashed by an inferior court. The authority sought to appeal pursuant to provisions which allowed a right of appeal to ‘any person aggrieved’.
Held: Assuming the words ‘any person’ were capable of including a local planning authority, the authority in question was not a ‘person aggrieved’ as no financial or legal burden had been placed upon it as a result of the decision. If parliament had intended the local planning authority to have a right of appeal, it would have said so clearly and used words which placed the matter beyond all doubt.
Donovan J said: ‘I think it is true that if one came to the expression without reference to judicial decision one would say that the words ‘person aggrieved by a decision’ mean no more than a person who had had the decision given against him; but the courts have decided that the words mean more than that, and have held that the word ‘aggrieved’ is not synonymous in this context with the word ‘dissatisfied’. The word `aggrieved’ connotes some legal grievance, for example, a deprivation of something, an adverse effect on the title to something, and so on.’
Lord Parker CJ said that it is easier to say what will not constitute a person aggrieved than it is to say what ‘person aggrieved’ includes.

Judges:

Donovan J, Lord Parker CJ

Citations:

[1959] 1 QB 384, [1959] 2 WLR 194, [1959] 1 All ER 286

Cited by:

CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.470544

Allen v West Yorkshire Probation Service: QBD 20 Feb 2001

Where a defendant felt that a sentence imposed by magistrates was wrong, he should take the issue to the Crown Court by way of appeal. It was wrong to try to deal with it by way of judicial review or appeal by way of case stated. As much as anything else the greater delay would lead to additional difficulties in carrying out any sentence.

Citations:

Times 20-Feb-2001

Judicial Review, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77746

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (2): QBD 22 Jun 1993

The introduction of a Standard Fees Criminal Legal Aid regime did not require prior consultation with the Law Society. The rules had been imposed in accordance with the words of the enabling statute.

Citations:

Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Judicial Review, Costs, Legal Aid, Legal Professions

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.163155

Regina v Herrod, ex parte Leeds City District Council: CA 1976

Lord Denning MR described the game bingo: ‘I expect that everybody knows ordinary bingo. It is played at bazaars, sales of work [sic: in [1976] 1 All ER 273, at 279c, the phrase is ‘places of work’], and so forth, for small prizes and is perfectly lawful. Now prize bingo is like ordinary bingo, but played with sophisticated apparatus. Instead of cards with numbers on them, there are dials facing the players. A player puts in a coin (5p for two cards). Thereupon two dials light up showing numbers corresponding to two cards. When the game starts, instead of someone drawing a number out of a hat, a machine throws a ball into the air. A gaily dressed lady plucks one of them and calls out the number. If it is one of the numbers on the dial, the player crosses it out by pulling a cover over it. If he gets all his numbers crossed out correctly before the other players, he gets a prize. This is obviously a lottery or a game of chance, but it is not a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is not ‘provided by means of the machine’ but means of the gay lady: see section 26(2) of the Gaming Act 1968.
In some of these premises there are also some ‘one-armed bandits.’ These are gaming machines. The player puts in a coin. This enables him to pull a handle to forecast a result. Cylinders revolve and give an answer. If he succeeds, he gets the winnings. If he fails, he loses his money. This is undoubtedly a ‘gaming machine’ because the element of chance is provided by means of a machine: see section 26(1) of the Act of 1968 and Capper v. Baldwin [1965] 2 QB 53.’
Lord Denning MR said: ‘If a person comes to the High Court seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Crown Court – or any other tribunal for that matter-he should act promptly and before the other party has taken any step on the faith of the decision. Else he may find that the High Court will refuse him a remedy. If he has been guilty of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side’.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1976] QB 540

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc CA 30-Oct-2013
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.589259

Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd: 1974

A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord Widgery CJ said: ‘it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy . . An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used . I would, however, define a proper case as being one where the decision in question is liable to be upset as a matter of law because on its face it is clearly made without jurisdiction or in consequence of an error of law . . it has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1974] QB 720, [1974] 2 All ER 643, [1974] 2 WLR 805

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.471207

Regina (Save) v Gateshead Metropolian Borough Council: Admn 2010

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.428417

Morgan v Lloyd: 1981

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1981] LLR 423

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAurangzeb, Regina (on the Application of) v the Law Society of England and Wales Admn 7-May-2003
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions of the Law Society as to his alleged practise as a solicitor in breach of conditions previously imposed, and of failure to notify the Society of his bankruptcy.
Held: The request failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.263522

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council: CA 19 Jul 1991

The court considered the proper range within which challenges to affidavit evidence given in judicial reviw proceedings should be kept. Dillon LJ said: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an affidavit in order to seek to ascertain whether it is correct or not unless there is some material available outside that contained in the affidavit to suggest that in some material respect the affidavit is not accurate. Without some prima facie case for suggesting that the affidavit is in some respects incorrect it is improper to allow discovery of documents, the only purpose of which would be to act as a challenge to the accuracy of the affidavit. With that I would, in general, agree – and indeed the decision binds us. But I would add the qualification that if the affidavit only deals partially, and not sufficiently adequately, with an issue it may be appropriate to order discovery to supplement the affidavit, rather than to challenge its accuracy. That must depend on the nature of the issue.’
McCowan LJ: ‘The second matter which emerges from the authorities is that unless the applicant in judicial review is in a position to assert that the evidence relied on by a minister is false, or at least inaccurate, it is inappropriate to grant discovery in order to allow the applicant to check the accuracy of the evidence in question.’

Judges:

Dillon LJ, McCowan LJ

Citations:

[1991] CAT 1991/761.

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247416

Regina (International Masters Publishers Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 19 Jan 2006

The taxpayer sold book with associated CDs. The respondent refused to apply the ESC 37 concession. There was doubt its capacity to do so, but the taxpayer first lodged an appeal. It now sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision out of time.
Held: The applicant had been aware of the possibility of applying for judicial review from the start. It had instead lodged an appeal hoping to save costs. In those circumstances leave would be refused. The delay was substantial. The company should have notified the respondents of its doubts, and sought an agreement from the respondent to an extension of time to apply for a judicial review.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoInternational Masters Publishers Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 25-Apr-2005
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SUPPLY – CD book as part of a series on classic composers comprising a CD and 12 pages of written material and illustrations – principal supply is that of the CD – appeal dismissed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238287

Regina v Chief Constable, ex parte McKenna: 1992

A detained person challenged the police handling of his case by way of judicial review.

Citations:

[1992] NI 116

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

CitedCullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Northern Ireland) HL 10-Jul-2003
The claimant had been arrested. He had been refused access to a solicitor whilst detaiined, but, in breach of statutory duty, he had not been given reasons as to why access was denied. He sought damages for that failure.
Held: If damages were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.184498

Regina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another: CA 13 Dec 2002

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Appealed fromRegina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
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 . .
CitedLloyd v McMahon HL 12-Mar-1987
The district auditor had issued a certificate under the 1982 Act surcharging the appellant councillors in the sum of 106,103, pounds being the amount of a loss incurred or deficiency caused, as the auditor found, by their wilful misconduct.
CitedCalvin v Carr PC 15-Jan-1979
(New South Wales) It was argued that a decision of the stewards of the Australian Jockey Club was void for having been made in breach of the rules of natural justice.
Held: The stewards were entitled to use the evidence of their eyes and their . .

Cited by:

Appealed ToRegina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another QBD 13-Mar-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.178446

Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another: QBD 13 Mar 2002

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.

Judges:

Justice Mitchell

Citations:

Times 16-May-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Appealed ToRegina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
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 . .

Cited by:

Appealed fromRegina (DR) (AM) v St George’s Catholic School and Others, Regina (A) v Kingsmead School Governors and Another CA 13-Dec-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.171182

Regina v Ceredigion County Council ex parte McKeown: Admn 6 Jun 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a wind farm. Laws J said that it was nearly impossible to conceive of a case in which leave to move for judicial review would be granted to attack a planning permission when the application was lodged more than six weeks after the planning permission had been granted.

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 526, [1998] 2 PLR 1, [1997] COD 463

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.137471

Regina v Customs and Excise Commissioners, Ex Eurotunnel Plc and Others: QBD 23 Feb 1995

A Judicial Review application remained time barred despite leave having been given to apply out of time.

Citations:

Independent 23-Feb-1995, [1995] CLC 392

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Worcestershire Health Council (Arising From the Complaint of Kidderminster and District Community Health Council) CA 28-May-1999
The respondent had planned to downgrade a local hospital, closing the accident and emergency department. This was a renewed application for leave to seek judicial review of the plan. The health authority initially developed and had before them seven . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86494

Regina v Cripps, ex parte Muldoon: QBD 1984

C, a barrister was appointed to hear an election petition under section 115. The petitioners later sought an order of certiorari to quash his costs award. It was claimed that no such remedy lay against the tribunal.
Held: Certiorari would lie. Once the election court had made its order, it was functus officio, and not free to return to its earlier order and amend it under the slip rule. Goff LJ observed that the Court-Martial Appeal Court and the Restrictive Practices Court were simple examples of courts which were not inferior for the purposes of judicial review.

Judges:

Goff LJ

Citations:

[1984] 1 QB 68

Statutes:

Representation of the People Act 1949 110, 115

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Elections

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.442690

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Challenger: QBD 11 Jul 2000

An order was due to come into effect, and there was to be a public enquiry. The applicants sought review of the decision not to provide legal assistance for local objectors, on the grounds that it would prejudice their rights under the Human Rights Act, alleging breach of their rights to a fair trial by inequality of arms.. The court held that it would not be correct to allow a judicial review to give current effect to an Act which itself had not yet come into effect.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2000

Judicial Review, Human Rights

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88623

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Ex Parte Bulger: QBD 7 Mar 2001

The family of a murder victim has no standing to intervene to challenge the tariff set for the sentence to be served by the youths convicted of the murder. They had been invited to state the impact of their son’s death, but not the sentence to be served. Although the standing required for judicial review was now generally lower, the fact of having made representations did not give them any such standing. When fixing the tariff of sentence to be served by a youth, the court must look on each occasion also at questions of rehabilitation.

Citations:

Times 07-Mar-2001, [2001] 3 All E R 449

Statutes:

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 44, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 82A

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of Dudson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chief Justice Admn 21-Nov-2003
The applicant had been sentenced to detention during Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He sought a judicial review of the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation to the Home Secretary for the minimum term he was to serve.
Held: In exercising this function, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88628

Regina v Leicester Crown Court, ex parte Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 23 Feb 2001

An order made by a judge that the prosecution pay the defence’s costs, which had been unnecessarily incurred after a failure properly to disclose evidence to them, was an order made as part of the Crown Court trial, and so was not susceptible to judicial review.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19, Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (1986 No 1335)

Criminal Practice, Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88533

Regina v Bolsover District Council, ex parte Pepper: QBD 15 Nov 2000

If a decision by a local council to sell land was not automatically a public law decision susceptible to judicial review, then neither was a decision not to sell land. Such a decision by a local authority was by nature one of private law unless there existed some circumstance which brought in a specific public law element. In making the decision, the council was not performing a public function.

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2000

Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88388

Regina v Warwickshire County Council Ex Parte Powergen Plc: QBD 9 Jan 1997

The power to incorporate highway works in planning agreements is limited to subject land. Forbes J said: ‘It is common ground that the new Section 278 was intended to fit into and play its part in the overall legislative system for the controlled development of land through the planning process and I accept that Section 278 must be interpreted accordingly. In my opinion, where the benefit to the public of the proposed highway works, in respect of which an agreement with the Highway Authority is sought under Section 278 of the 1980 Act, has been fully considered and determined in the planning process, because the highway works in question form a detailed and related aspect of the application for development of land in respect of which planning consent has been properly obtained through that planning process, then the Highway Authority’s discretion whether to enter into the Section 278 agreement will necessarily be somewhat limited. In such a case, the matters remaining to be considered by the Highway Authority in the proper exercise of its discretion under Section 278, are likely to be relatively minor in nature. I agree with Mr Hicks that the proper exercise of that discretion by the Highway Authority will not embrace a further and separate reconsideration of the benefit to the public of the highway works in question by reference to the same reasons as those which had already been considered and determined in the planning process. If such a reconsideration by the Highway Authority were to be a proper exercise of its discretion under Section 278, then that would largely frustrate the scheme of the legislation of which Section 278 is conceded to be part. This would be particularly so where, as in the present case, there has been no challenge to the validity of the relevant planning decision pursuant to Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, notwithstanding the Highway Authority’s right to bring such a challenge under that Section.’
As to the challenge by Powergen on Wednesbury grounds: ‘In this case there had been a dispute as to the balance of the public interest with regard to the proposed development. The adequacy of the access arrangements and the related highway works was one factor in that balance. In the course of the planning process, the County Council as Highway Authority argued that, because of the lack of forward visibility, the balance of public interest was against the proposed development for road safety reasons. The dispute was fully argued at the planning appeal and determined by the Secretary of State by his duly appointed Inspector. The Inspector’s conclusions were clear and were not challenged pursuant to Section 288 of the 1990 Act, within the prescribed time limits or at all. Having regard to the terms of Section 284 of the 1990 Act, I accept Mr Hicks’ submission that the Inspector’s conclusions should be treated as both reasonable and final. The present proceedings are not the place to reconsider the merits of the foregoing dispute. Since the development proposals as a whole were found to be in the public interest, so too were the detailed highway works which formed a necessary and related part of those proposals. In those circumstances, I accept Mr Hicks’ submission that no reasonable Highway Authority would, on the sole basis of the arguments as to road safety which had been fully considered and determined in the planning process, refuse to enter into any necessary Section 278 Agreement on the grounds that to do so was not a benefit to the public, thereby preventing the development from proceeding. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the decision of the County Council in this case to refuse to enter into the Section 278 agreement in question is both perverse and unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. As Mr Hicks succinctly put it, it cannot be reasonable for the Highway Authority to allow a decision of the Secretary of State to be implemented only if it agrees with that decision.’

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

Times 09-Jan-1997, (1998) 96 LGR 17

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 278

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 30-Apr-1997
Application for leave to appeal – interaction of planning system and section 278. . .
Appeal fromRegina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
CitedMackaill and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission Admn 6-Oct-2014
The three claimants were police officers. They met a senior MP at Sutton Coldfield. They emerged from the meeting and were said to have made misleading statements as to the content of the meeting. The IPCC referred the matters back to local forces . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.88272

Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd: QBD 11 Jan 1995

Judicial Review was granted in respect of a decision to fund the Pergau Dam. There was a possible argument that it involved a misuse of money which had been intended for foreign aid.

Citations:

Independent 11-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 386

Cited by:

CitedJennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.87721

Regina v North West Leicestershire District Council: QBD 29 Sep 1999

The applicant sought review several years after a decision allowing an extension of a runway, having come to be affected by the increase in noise. She said the decision should only have been made after an assessment of the consequential environmental impact. She moved before the application was heard. Since she was no longer a person affected by the decision. Her application was refused.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Sep-1999

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses CA 28-Apr-2000
The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87449

Regina v North West Thames Regional Health Authority and Others, ex parte Daniels (Rhys William): QBD 18 Jun 1993

The court considered that a failure by the district health authority to consult the community health council before closing a local hospital was unlawful.

Citations:

Independent 18-Jun-1993, Times 22-Jun-1993

Health Professions, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87452

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex Parte Chaudhry: QBD 9 Jul 1993

The Crown Prosecution Service was in the process of pursuing a prosecution when the private prosecutor sought to bring a prosecution for a serious offence arising out of the same facts. There would be potentially concurrent prosecutions.
Held: Magistrates were not wrong to disallow a private prosecution in addition to crown prosecution. A private prosecutor does not have the unfettered right to a trial. Kennedy LJ said that on the question of the relevant considerations, when deciding whether to issue a summons in such a case: ‘The magistrate should have regard to all of the relevant circumstances of which he is aware . . . such as whether the incident giving rise to the information which he is considering has already been investigated by a responsible prosecuting authority which is pursuing what it considers to be the appropriate charges against the same proposed defendant.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Bell J

Citations:

Independent 09-Jul-1993, Times 14-Sep-1993, [1994] QB 340

Statutes:

Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 6(1)

Cited by:

CitedCharlson, Regina (on the Application of) v Guildford Magistrates’ Court and others Admn 11-Sep-2006
The CPS had discontinued a prosecution. The magistrates were then asked to issue a summons for a private prosecution. The private prosecutor appealed against the refusal to issue the summons. A second summons was requested from a different . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Crime, Magistrates

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87326

Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly: HL 11 Jul 1996

The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would be affected financially by reason of his obligation to pay sums to the Authority.
Held: The Secretary of State is not to be made party to judicial review proceedings even though he would be the ultimate payer. Though a party directly affected by the claim may be joined as an interested party, Lord Keith said: ‘That a person is directly affected by something connotes that he is affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency. In the present case, if the applications for judicial review are successful the Secretary of State will not have to pay housing benefit to the applicants either directly or through the agency of the local authority. What will happen is that up to 95% will be added to the subsidy paid by the Secretary of State to the local authority after the end of the financial year. The Secretary of State would certainly be affected by the decision, and it may be said that he would inevitably or necessarily be affected. But he would in my opinion, be only indirectly affected by reason of his collateral obligation to pay subsidy to the local authority.’ The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on such judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.
The Secretary of State has no locus to insist on joining in on judicial review proceedings despite being the eventual payer of the benefit payment decision being reviewed.

Judges:

Lord Keith

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 1103

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court O 53 r593)

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Rent Officer Service and Another Ex Parte Kelly CA 18-Apr-1995
The Secretary of State was not entitled to be served with notice of all Judicial Review applications on benefits. He was not sufficiently directy connected, . .

Cited by:

CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
CitedNemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Administrative, Litigation Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.87193

Regina v Harrow Crown Court Ex Perkins; Regina v Cardiff Crown Court Ex Parte M (A Minor): QBD 28 Apr 1998

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.

Citations:

Times 28-Apr-1998

Statutes:

Supreme Court Act 1981 29(3)

Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86816

Regina v Horsham District Council and Another Ex Parte Wenman and Others: QBD 7 Oct 1993

Counsel/solicitors are to reassess Judicial Review proceedings after discovery. Training in judicial review was urged for lawyers to avoid wasted costs orders.

Citations:

Times 21-Oct-1993, Independent 07-Oct-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86895

Regina v Greenwich London Borough Council, Ex Parte Patterson: QBD 27 May 1993

A council should satisfy itself by making more enquiries about suggestions of domestic violence before transferring a claimant to another authority. The granting of leave to move for a judicial review does not preclude the respondent from objecting that the application has been made out of time. (Obiter)

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1993, Times 27-May-1993, (1993) 26 HLR 159

Statutes:

Housing Act 1985 67(4)

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte A HL 11-Mar-1999
A police doctor’s statement in a contemporary medical report that her findings were consistent with the claimant’s allegation had not been included in the evidence before the CICB when it rejected her claim for compensation.
Held: The decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86768

Regina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association: QBD 13 Jan 1994

The court should distinguish the concepts of locus standi and capacity when considering applications for judicial review. An unincorporated association is not a legal person and may not seek Judicial Review.

Citations:

Independent 13-Jan-1994, Times 21-Jan-1994

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 53 3(7)

Cited by:

See AlsoRegina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Association of Darlington Tax Owners and Another (No 2) QBD 14-Apr-1994
An unincorporated association although not a legal person with the capacity to sue in judicial review, may still suffer an order for costs. . .
See AlsoRegina v Darlington Borough Council Ex Parte Association of Darlington Taxi Owners and Darlington Owner Drivers Association (No 2) 1995
The court made an order for costs against the members of the Association on rejection of its request for permission to bring judicial review proceeds, even though he had found that the Association was not a legal person capable of bringing such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Company

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86507

Regina v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another Ex Parte Bennett: QBD 10 Nov 1994

The divisional Court has no power to review the execution of a Scottish warrant by the police in England.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1994, Ind Summary 09-Jan-1995

Statutes:

Union with Scotland Act 1706

Judicial Review, Scotland, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86414

Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex Parte Granada Television Ltd: QBD 31 May 1993

The Commission had not been unreasonable in taking the view that a broadcast had infringed the privacy of the subject of the complaint. Judicial Review was not available against BBC for infringement of privacy.

Citations:

Times 31-May-1993, Independent 04-Jun-1993

Statutes:

Broadcasting Act 1990 143 (1), Broadcasting Act 1983

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd CA 16-Dec-1994
The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by . .
CitedMcKennitt and others v Ash and Another QBD 21-Dec-2005
The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Media

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86222

Regina v B (Extradition: Abuse of Process): CACD 17 Oct 2000

An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000

Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86080

Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council: QBD 25 May 2001

The duty imposed by section 17 of the Act on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children is a general duty only, and is not capable of being enforced for the benefit of a particular child by way of judicial review. As a so called target duty decisions made by the local authority pursuant to it were not open to challenge by review. Other sections may give rise to specific duties which might be so challenged, but not the general obligation.
courtcommentary.com Duty placed on social services authority under Children Act 1989 s17 is a target duty owed to children in general and not justiciable by judicial review – no duty in law to meet assessed needs by providing alternative accommodation for the whole family

Judges:

Baker

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-2001, CO/3698/2000, (2001) LGR 513

Links:

courtcommentary.com

Statutes:

Children Act 1989 17 20

Citing:

Appealed toRegina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 5-Nov-2001
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina (on the Application of J) v London Borough of Enfield and Another Admn 4-Mar-2002
The mother and child were destitute, and sought to oblige the local authority to provide accommodation and support.
Held: The duty to a child under the section could not be extended to include a duty to accommodate and support the child and . .
Appeal fromRegina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 5-Nov-2001
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Local Government, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85947

Regina (Gavira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 15 May 2001

The procedure whereby the Secretary of State could certify that an asylum seeker’s claim did not disclose a valid ground, did not allow the Secretary to issue a certificate which depended upon a denial of the truth of the applicant’s claim. Where the claim asserted that the asylum-seeker had a fear of prosecution based upon facts which, if true, would bring her claim within the United Nations Convention, was a claim showing a fear of prosecution. The use of the procedure relying upon the disbelief of the applicant was quite unreasonable.

Citations:

Times 15-May-2001

Immigration, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85969

Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Patel; Regina v City of London Magistrates Court, Ex Parte Cropper: QBD 7 Dec 1999

There is no rule to say that the investigation of an offence cannot begin until after it has been committed. For the Act, the meaning of ‘criminal investigation’ has the same meaning in Part I as in Part II, and accordingly, where an investigation into an offence begins before the cut off point after which old, full-style committals cease to be available, and the offence is committed after that date, an old style committal remains available. ‘In particular this may be so in a surveillance case or where a series of offences is committed, some before and some after the appointed day. Whether, of course, in any given case that is the correct view will be a question of fact for the examining magistrates. They must . . ask themselves the simple question: when did the criminal investigation of this offence begin?’

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1999, Gazette 07-Jan-2000, [1999] 164 JP 209

Statutes:

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996

Citing:

CitedRegina v Norfolk Stipendary Magistrates ex parte Keable Admn 29-Jan-1998
A police investigation into an offence not yet committed, did not count as an investigation into that offence for the purposes of setting the start date under the Act. . .

Cited by:

CitedBrizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85598

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Shaw: QBD 16 Mar 2000

A prisoner was subject to a discretionary life imprisonment order. To try to accelerate his release he applied to take part in a program for the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Before that decision was made, he was reclassified as a psychopath, and then refused entry to the program. He sought to review that decision, because he had not been given opportunity to make representations about it. The decision was part of a continuing review of the prisoner, and the effect on his potential early release, whilst real, remained a secondary consequence.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2000

Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85538

Regina v Muntham House School, Ex Parte R: QBD 26 Jan 2000

It was not possible to judicially review the admission policy of a private school. It was a private body, even though it received the bulk of its income from local authorities, and it was otherwise subject to strict statutory control.

Citations:

Times 26-Jan-2000

Judicial Review, Education

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85418

Regina v Director General of Telecommunications, Ex P Cellcom Ltd and others: QBD 7 Dec 1998

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.’

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

Times 07-Dec-1998, Gazette 10-Feb-1999, [1999] ECC 314

Statutes:

Telecommunications Act 1984 3

Cited by:

CitedRegina on the Application of T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd, Vodafone Ltd, Orange Personal Communication Services Ltd v The Competition Commission, the Director-General of Telecommunications Admn 27-Jun-2003
The applicants sought to challenge a proposed scheme regulating the prices of telephone calls.
Held: The principle objection was to termination charges, charges on calls between networks. The present charges were greater than the actual cost, . .
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 . .
CitedWildman, Regina (on the Application of) v The Office of Communications Admn 25-Jul-2005
The claimant sought judicial review of an order quashing the decision of the Office of Communications to refuse a radio licence.
Held: The court should be very cautious before quashing a decision as to the allocation of broadcasting licences. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Judicial Review, Licensing

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85227

Regina v Chief Constables of C and D, Ex Parte A: QBD 7 Nov 2000

The passing of sensitive personal information between one police force and another was not a decision subject to obligations which made it subject to judicial review. Information falling short of convictions could properly be passed, and information passed between police forces rather than between police forces and other authorities was subject to lesser controls. There was no breach of the Data Protection Acts. With regard to the earlier Act the data was processed manually, and for both, the information passed was for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime. Disclosures outside the police force were required to pass the test of being to satisfy a pressing need.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1984, Data Protection Act 1998

Police, Judicial Review, Information

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85184

Regina v Director General of Electricity Supply, Ex Parte London Electricity Plc: QBD 13 Jun 2000

Where the cost of upgrading supply systems in order to support large numbers of newly installed night storage systems fell to be apportioned, the test as to who should bear the burden was according to causation. An increase under twenty five per cent would not have occasioned a charge, and individually no one supply exceeded that amount, but the Director must look to the whole scheme. For one identifiable scheme it was unrealistic to break it back down into individual increments in demand.

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-2000

Administrative, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85226

Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd,ex parte Charles Robertson (Developments) Ltd: QBD 26 Nov 1999

The decision as to whether material constituted an advertisement was one for the Authority to decide, and was not reviewable unless the true and contrary conclusion opposed the Authority’s finding. Articles written as a column in a newspaper the space for which was bought by the author were capable of being advertisements, and the Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1999

Media, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85110

Payabi and Another v Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another: QBD 1 Apr 1992

A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: ‘But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is implicitly (but inelegantly) giving effect to the first alternative, (a), in section 35(6). The result is that the rule relevant to the present case, Ord 20. r. 5, must be construed as being made under the general power to regulate procedure and under the more specific power given for the purposes of that Act by section 35 of the Act of 1980.’

Judges:

Hobhouse J

Citations:

Gazette 01-Apr-1992, [1992] 1 QB 907

Statutes:

Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986, Limitation Act 1980 35(6)

Citing:

CitedMitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .

Cited by:

CitedHamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland) HL 11-Jul-2007
The pursuers had been shareholders in a company which sold spring water. The defenders took shares in the company in return for promises as to the promotion and distribution of the bottled water. The pursuers said that they had failed to promote it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Limitation

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84615

King v East Ayrshire Council: IHCS 3 Nov 1997

An application for the closure of a school need not be based upon an assessment of school’s pupil capacity as at time of assessment. The court may exercise its discretion to refuse judicial review where that is appropriate, having regard to the public interest in public authorities and third parties not being kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision for any longer than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by it.

Citations:

Times 03-Nov-1997, 1998 SC 182

Statutes:

Education (Publication and Consultation (Scotland)) Regulations 1985 (1985 No 1558) am

Citing:

AppliedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:

CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Scotland, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82784

Hardie v Edinburgh City Council: OHCS 16 Feb 2000

The question of whether a supply teacher had properly been removed form the Local Authority’s list, was a matter with public law issues, and was capable of being subject to a judicial review. The authority was fulfilling a statutory duty to provide adequate education, even there was no express duty to maintain such a list. In this case also there was no continuing private contractual relationship between the applicant and the authority.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-2000

Judicial Review, Employment, Education

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81229

PP v The Home Office and Another: QBD 30 Mar 2017

The claimant had said that she was a victim of human trafficking. That claim being rejected, she was taken into immigration detention. She now claimed that this was unlawful.
Held: That the request for review was out of time did not defeat the claim where, the strict requirement having been relaxed because of the nature of the claim. However, the claim of false imprisonment should not be struck out.

Judges:

Parkes QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 663 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 233

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Human Rights, Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.581416

Richards v Worcestershire County Council and Another: CA 12 Dec 2017

Appeal by two public authorities against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s claim as an abuse of process. The principal point of law which arises for decision is whether (following O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237) the claimant was entitled to proceed under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than by way of judicial review.

Judges:

Rupert Jackson, Lewison, Hamblen LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1998

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601142

Agyemang, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Haringey: CA 26 Oct 2017

Appeal by a claimant in judicial review proceedings against a costs order made by Haddon-Cave J on 17 February 2016 following the compromise of the proceedings. The judge made no order for costs. The claimant, who is publicly funded, says that she should have been awarded her costs because she had obtained by agreement substantially all of the relief which she had been seeking in the proceedings.

Judges:

Patten , Aspin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1630

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Costs, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598460

Wamala, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 23 May 2017

Appeal against an order refusing the Appellant’s application for costs in judicial review proceedings in which he sought a declaration that his detention had been unlawful and an order for his release, which was in the event compromised before determination.

Judges:

David Richards, Hickinbottom LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 363

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Judicial Review, Costs

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584258

Regina v Lancashire County Council, ex parte Huddlestone: CA 25 Apr 1986

Sir John Donaldson described judicial review: ‘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 [where] the vast majority of the cards will start in the authority’s hands.’ and as to the development 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.’
Parker LJ said that the Defendant in judicial Review: ‘should set out fully what they did and why, so far as is necessary, fully and fairly to meet the challenge.’

Judges:

Sir John Donaldson, Parker LJ

Citations:

[1986] 2 All ER 941

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation v Sugar and Another Admn 27-Apr-2007
The applicant sought publication of a report prepared for the respondent as to the even handedness of its reporting of matters in the middle east. The BBC had refused saying that the release of the report would have direct impact on its ability to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.251563

St Matthews (West) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury: Admn 20 May 2014

Application by the claimant to cross-examine one or more of the defendant’s witnesses brought in the context, not just of a judicial review claim, but a rolled-up hearing for permission to bring judicial review with the judicial review to follow.

Andrews J
[2014] EWHC 2426 (Admin)
Bailii

Judicial Review

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.564494

Public Interest Lawyers Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 5 Nov 2010

Application for interim relief and a protective costs order in relation to claims arising out of tendering exercises conducted by the defendant, the Legal Services Commission. These tendering exercises relate to the award of the contracts to provide publicly funded legal services. They relate to contracts for public law work and mental law work in high-security hospitals. The injunction sought would permit the defendant to continue the process of verifying successful bids and hear appeals but prevent the issue of a new contract or ‘new matter starts’ essentially until the outcome of judicial review proceedings.

Cranston J
[2010] EWHC 3259 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Judicial Review, Legal Aid

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550657

S v Airedale National Health Service Trust: QBD 22 Aug 2002

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.’

Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
[2003] Lloyd’s Rep Med 21, [2003] MHLR 63, Times 05-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority, Ex parte Munjaz (No 2) Admn 5-Jul-2002
The court dismissed the claimant’s complaint that the seclusion policies operated at Ashworth Special Hospital infringed his human rights. The Special Hospitals operated policies for seclusion which differed from the Code of Practice laid down under . .
CitedBolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
CitedRegina (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Special Hospital and Others CA 22-Oct-2001
A detained mental patient sought to challenge a decision by his RMO that he should receive anti-psychotic medication, despite his refusal to consent, and to challenge a certificate issued by the SOAD.
Held: Where a mental patient sought to . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMunjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
CitedShoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Ofsted and Others Admn 23-Apr-2010
The claimant challenged her dismissal as Director of children’s services at the respondent council following an adverse report into the Baby P death identified her department as being responsible. She said that the first defendant had allowed its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Torts – Other, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.174790

Giltinane v Child Support Agency: FD 9 Mar 2006

The applicant sought to appeal against a liability order out of time.
Held: The time limit for appeals was not extendable. However the magistrates finding had been based upon misleading evidence supplied by the Agency. Where as here there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice, it was open to the claimant to seek a judicial review of the magistrates’ decision. If there was no other way of providing justice a review would be granted. The decision was reviewed.

Munby J
Times 07-Apr-2006
England and Wales

Child Support, Judicial Review

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.240156

Regina v British Coal Corporation, Ex Parte Price and Others: QBD 28 May 1993

British Coal had the power to close coal mines once the unions had been consulted. The court gave guidance on the extent of consultation necessary.
Held: Fair consultation will involve consultation while consultations are at a formative stage; adequate information on which to respond; adequate time in which to respond and conscientious consideration by an authority of the response to consultation. Applying the test in R v Gwent ex p Bryant: ‘It is axiomatic that the process of consultation is not one in which the consultor is obliged to adopt any or all of the views expressed by the person or body whom he is consulting. ‘ and ‘Another way of putting the point more shortly is that fair consultation involves giving the body consulted a fair and proper opportunity to understand fully the matters about which it is being consulted, and to express its views on those subjects, with the consultor thereafter considering those views properly and genuinely.’

Glidewell LJ
Times 28-May-1993, [1994] IRLR 72
Citing:
AdoptedRegina v Gwent County Council ex parte Bryant 1988
The court described what was meant by consultation: ‘Fair consultation means: (a) consultation when the proposals are still at a formative stage; (b) adequate information on which to respond; (c) adequate time in which to respond; (d) conscientious . .

Cited by:
CitedLambe v 186K Ltd CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been dismissed for redundancy, but the company had been found not to have consulted him properly, and he had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal had then found that even if consulted the result would not have been . .
CitedCambridge Housing Society v Anwar EAT 9-Mar-2007
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason / Reasonableness for dismissal
4 grounds of appeal challenging reasonableness of Employment Tribunal decision allowing a claim . .
CitedMccaffrey v Fold Housing Association NIIT 27-Nov-2007
. .
CitedEnglish v Coastal Container Line Ltd NIIT 17-Dec-2008
. .
CitedHanover (Scotland) Housing Association Limited v John Reid Margaret Reid OHCS 6-Apr-2006
. .
CitedPolyglobe Group Ltd v Vadher, Hassen EAT 21-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity. The Employment Tribunal made an important factual finding as to the process by which the employees were dismissed, the finding being on a . .
CitedCranwick Country Food Plc v GMB Trade Union EAT 6-Sep-2005
EAT Tribunal correct that consultation about the correspondence of factory closure should have taken place immediately after closure plans announced before contracts exchanged on a new site. Securicor and Susie . .
CitedM Mofunanya v Richmond Fellowship A Hanley EAT 23-Dec-2003
EAT Redundancy – Definition
EAT Redundancy – Definition . .
CitedCaves v Board of Governors of Campbell College NIIT 23-Apr-2004
. .
CitedTransport and General Workers Union v Manchester Airport Plc EAT 4-Aug-2004
EAT Redundancy – Collective consultation and information . .
CitedAmicus v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd EAT 26-Jul-2005
EAT Employers failed to consult with company council rather than union – did not consult with union until later stage 3 weeks before employees had to indicate willingness to be relocated but 4.5 months before . .
CitedSecuricor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union) EAT 7-Apr-2003
EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult . .
CitedOakley v Merseyside Magistrates Court Committee EAT 2-Mar-2003
EAT Redundancy – Collective Consultation and Information . .
CitedAlstom Traction Ltd v Birkenhead and others EAT 10-Oct-2002
. .
CitedColvin v Attol Business Systems Ltd EAT 29-Nov-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
CitedHailwood v Best Power Technology Ltd EAT 29-Sep-1999
EAT Redundancy – Fairness . .
CitedScotch Premier Meat Ltd v Stuart Burns and others EAT 28-Apr-2000
EAT Redundancy – Definition . .
CitedMiddlesbrough Borough Council v TGWU Unison EAT 4-May-2001
The council sought to make redundancies because of its financial circumstances following re-organisation. The employees said the consultation procedure had been a sham.
Held: Fair consultation involves giving the body consulted a fair and . .
CitedGodrich and Serwotka v Public and Commercial Services Union and Reamsbottom ChD 31-Jul-2002
The second defendant had become General Secretary of the first defendant after the amalgamation of two unions. The defendants agreed a compromise as to his term of office. The applicants sought declarations that they were now joint secretary.
CitedHailwood v Best Power Technology Ltd EAT 29-Sep-2000
. .
CitedO’Kane and Another v Grayston White and Sparrow Ltd EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .
CitedRowell v Hubbard Group Services Ltd EAT 12-Jan-1995
. .
CitedBritish Flowplant Group Ltd and others EAT 9-May-1995
. .
CitedOrmsby v the West of England Shipowners Insurance EAT 8-Nov-1995
. .
CitedReeve v Agricultural and Food Research Council EAT 9-Feb-1996
. .
CitedArmishaw v London Docklands Development Corporation EAT 16-Jan-1996
. .
CitedIsaac v Badgerline Ltd EAT 16-May-1996
. .
CitedBritish Flowplant Group Ltd v Law and others EAT 12-Mar-1997
. .
CitedBritish Flowplant Group Ltd v Law and others EAT 16-Dec-1997
. .
CitedTabani v United Bank Ltd EAT 21-Jun-1999
. .
CitedLloyd v Taylor Woodrow Construction EAT 1-Jul-1999
A defect of the consultation procedure in a redundancy which could make a dismissal unfair, was capable in some circumstances of being corrected by the company in its appeal procedure. The appellant had not originally been informed of the criteria . .
CitedCable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern EAT 29-Oct-2009
The company appealed against the upholding of the union’s claim that the company was in breach of the regulations. The company was to close its factory and decided at first to begin consultations for redundancy, but then looked for a buyer for the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Administrative

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.86211

Chuah, Regina (on The Application of) v Birmingham Crown Court and Another: Admn 30 Jul 2013

Application for judicial review of refusal of leave to appeal against conviction out of time.
Held: Proceedings by way of judicial review were wrong, because the Claimant sought to undermine the basis of the conviction and so any challenge to the Crown Court rulings ought to have been by way of Case Stated.

Saunders, Hickinbottom LJJ
[2013] EWHC 3336 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520864

Henry, Regina (on The Application of) v The Bar Standards Board: Admn 28 Sep 2016

JR leave refusal – BSB Disciplinary Refusal

The claimant, was a solicitor who had himself been disciplined for misconduct, of disciplinary decisions following findings that his conduct had fallen short of that expected of an ordinary honest individual with his knowledge and experience and that he was guilty of a dishonest assistance in breach of trust. He had requested the defendant tio institute disciplinary proceedings against two barristers, but, having looked at it the Board declined to take it any further. He now made a renewed application for leave to bring judicial review of the decision.
Held: The PCC had adequately investigated the complaints and concluded that they should be dismissed. That was a reasonable conclusion properly open to the PCC. Whilst the complaint was not entirely without merit, applying Samia, it still lacked sufficient merit to warrant being taken further.

Whipple J
[2016] EWHC 2343 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedWasif v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 9-Feb-2016
Wide scope for refusal of JR leave
These two appeals have been listed together because they both raise an issue about the proper approach to be taken in considering whether to certify an application for permission to apply for judicial review as ‘totally without merit’.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.569626

Wightman, MSP and Others, Reclaiming Motion By v The Advocate General: SCS 20 Mar 2018

Art 50 withdrawal possibility review to proceed

Petition seeking judicial review of the United Kingdom Government’s ‘position’ on the revocability of a notice of intention to withdraw from the European Union in terms of Article 50.2 of the Treaty on European Union.

[2018] ScotCS CSIH – 18
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer HouseWightman MSP and Others for Judicial Review v The Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SCS 8-Jun-2018
The Petitioners sought a declaration that the Article 50 notice given by the UK government could be withdrawn by the UK without the consent of the EU.
Held: The matter was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary answer to the question: ‘Where, . .
At Outer HouseWightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 4-Dec-2018
Opinion – Unilateral withdrawal of Art 50 Notice
Opinion – Right of withdrawal from the European Union – Notification of the intention to withdraw – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom (Brexit)
Question referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Article 50 TEU – Right of withdrawal from . .
At Outer HouseWightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Constitutional, Judicial Review

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.609354

The British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Mar 1964

The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory functions; it is not in any general way subject to statutory guidance. The traditional view of it is that it does not exercise a governmental function, and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
Counsel claimed for the government the right to grant a monopoly of broadcasting. LJ Diplock replied: ‘It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. The limits within which the executive government may impose obligations or restraints upon citizens of the United Kingdom without any statutory authority are now well settled and incapable of extension. In particular, as respects monopolies the Crown’s claim to a general right to the monopoly of any activity was denied and circumscribed by the Statute of Monopolies, 1623. Today, save in so far as the power is preserved by the Statute of Monopolies, or created by other statutes, the executive government has no constitutional right either itself to exercise through its agents or to confer upon other persons a monopoly of any form of activity.’
and ‘The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’
As to whether a statute was binding on the Crown: ‘Since laws are made by rulers of the subjects, a general expression in a statute such as ‘any person’ descriptive of those on whom the statute imposes obligations or restraints is not to be read as including the ruler himself . . The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive Government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’

Willmer LJ, Diplock LJ, Danckwerts LJ
[1965] Ch 32 CA, [1964] EWCA Civ 2, [1964] 41 TC 471, (1964) 43 ATC 38, [1964] 1 All ER 923, [1964] 2 WLR 1071, [1964] TR 45, [1964] RVR 579, [1964] 10 RRC 239
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedOakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Dictum adoptedRevenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
CitedBlack, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
CitedLord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Judicial Review, Income Tax

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181973

Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd: Admn 10 Nov 1994

The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It was said by the defendant’s advisers to be an abuse of the aid system. The defendant said the plaintiff had no sufficient interest to mount a challenge. The plaintiff said that as a charity itself distributing aid, the diversion of such huge sums affected its own actions, and this amounted to a proper interest.
Held: The declaration was granted.
The issue of standing went as to jurisdiction, but there was nothing in the case law to deny the applicants such standing. Standing should be treated as a preliminary issue, taken in the legal and factual context of the whole case. As to that: ‘where, as here, the contemplated development is, on the evidence, so economically unsound that there is no economic argument in favour of the case, it is not, in my judgment, possible to draw any material distinction between questions of propriety and regularity on the one hand and questions of economy and efficiency of public expenditure on the other.’

Rose LJ, Scott Baker J
[1995] 1 WLR 386, [1994] EWHC Admin 1, [1995] 1 All ER 611, [1995] COD 211
Bailii
Overseas Development and Co operation Act 1980, Supreme Court Act 1981 31(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
CitedRegina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Social Services, Ex parte Child Poverty Action Group CA 1989
The applicants sought judicial review of the failures by the respondent in processing claims for benefits. They asked that there should be a declaration that the respondent had a duty to refer a claim to an adjudication officer as soon as it was . .
CitedRegina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc CA 14-Mar-1986
Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review
The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg Admn 30-Jul-1993
The applicant, a former editor of the Times, sought judicial review of the decision by the respondent to ratify the EU Treaty (Maastricht), saying that it would increase the powers of the European Parliament without it having been approved by . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ex parte Smedley CA 19-Dec-1984
The applicant sought, as a taxpayer, to object to the proposed payment of andpound;121m to the European Community without an Appropriation Act, but under an Order in Council. The claim was that a draft Order in Council laid by the Treasury before . .
CitedRegina v Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd; Knuller etc v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1972
The defendants were charged after pasting up in telephone booths advertisements for homosexual services. They published a magazine with similar advertisements. The House was asked to confirm the existence of an offence of outraging public decency. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington London Borough Council CA 19-Jul-1991
The court considered the proper range within which challenges to affidavit evidence given in judicial reviw proceedings should be kept. Dillon LJ said: ‘The . . argument is stated to have been that an applicant is not entitled to go behind an . .
CitedHanks and Others v Minister of Housing and Local Government 1963
A factor in a decision might be so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected the decision. There might be cases where the factor wrongly omitted was ‘insignificant’ and thus would not justify . .
CitedRegina v Inner London Education Authority, ex parte Westminster City Council 1986
A political purpose can taint an administrative decision with impropriety. . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Soblen CA 1963
Lord Denning MR discussed a decision to deport the applicant. The validity of the Minister’s act: ‘depends on the purpose with which the act is done.: ‘If it was done for an authorised purpose, it was lawful. If it was done professedly for an . .

Cited by:
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
CitedGood Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.245695

O’Reilly v Mackman: HL 1982

Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right

The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time limits.
Held: The forfeiture of remission for a prisoner was, as a matter of law, not a loss of liberty but a loss of a privilege, the loss of right protected by public law. Any proceedings to enforce a public duty should not be by way of ordinary action.
Lord Diplock said: ‘it would in my view as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of an ordinary action and by this means to evade the provisions of Order 53 for the protection of such authorities . . I have described this as a general rule; for though it may normally be appropriate to apply it by the summary process of striking out the action, there may be exceptions, particularly where the invalidity of the decision arises as a collateral issue in a claim for infringement of a right of the plaintiff arising under private law, or where none of the parties objects to the adoption of the procedure by writ or originating summons.’ The purpose of the requirement was to protect the public administration against false, frivolous or tardy challenges to official action: ‘The public interest in good administration requires that public authorities and third parties should not be kept in suspense as to the legal validity of a decision the authority has reached in purported exercise of decision-making powers for any longer period than is absolutely necessary in fairness to the person affected by the decision’. An advantage of O.53 was that the court had an opportunity to exercise its discretion at the outset of the proceedings rather than would have happened at that time in proceedings begun by originating summons at the end of the proceedings. This was an important protection in the interests of good administration and for third parties who may be indirectly affected by the proceedings: ‘Unless such an action can be struck out summarily at the outset as an abuse of the process of the court the whole purpose of the public policy to which the change in O.53 was directed would be defeated.’ Though a respondent should not normally be cross examined as to its affidavit, nevertheless, ‘ . . leave to cross-examination should be granted where the interests of justice so require.’ The grant of leave to cross-examine deponents is goverened by the same principles in applications for judicial review as in actions commenced by originating summonses.

Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brightman
[1983] 2 AC 237, [1982] 3 WLR 1096, [1982] 3 All ER 1124, [1983] UKHL 1
Bailii
RSC O53
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRegina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2) CA 1979
Proper Limits on Imprisonment
The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of . .

Cited by:
AppliedGillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security HL 17-Oct-1985
Lawfulness of Contraceptive advice for Girls
The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the . .
CitedKemper Reinsurance Company v The Minister of Finance and others PC 5-May-1998
(Bermuda) An appeal Court did have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of leave to apply for certiorari order, since this was outside scope of the rule in Lane v Esdaille.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Nevertheless, the limited nature . .
AppliedRegina v City of Westminster ex parte Mbayi Admn 15-Jul-1997
The applicant sought review of the decision of the respondent that she had refused accommodation. She wanted to assert that they had failed to take account of her medical needs.
Held: The application had not proceeded at a proper case, but the . .
CitedSD, Re Application for Judicial Review OHCS 2-Oct-2003
Parents sought judicial review of a decision not to open a Record of Needs for their child. A report said that the child was dyslexic. The applicants said his condition had not improved after an earlier request to open a record had been refused.
CitedBoddington v British Transport Police HL 2-Apr-1998
The defendant had been convicted, under regulations made under the Act, of smoking in a railway carriage. He sought to challenge the validity of the regulations themselves. He wanted to argue that the power to ban smoking on carriages did not . .
AppliedCocks v Thanet District Council HL 25-Nov-1981
The applicant had been given temporary accomodation under the Act. He sought to enforce the obligation on the respondent to house him permanently by an action in the county court. The authority said the action should have been by judicial review. . .
CitedRegina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
CitedClark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
CitedRoy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee HL 6-Feb-1992
The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff’s GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be . .
CitedMercury Communications Ltd v Director General of Telecommunications and Another HL 10-Feb-1995
The Secretary of State’s decision on the grant of a Telecommunications licence was challengeable by Summons and not by Judicial Review. A dispute between Mercury and BT as to charges as set by the Director General is a private not a public dispute. . .
CitedSteed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
MentionedQRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
CitedStancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought a declaration. Planning permission had been confirmed for four mineral extraction sites by letter in 1952. In 1996, two were listed as now being dormant. The claimant said the letter of 1952 created on single planning permision . .
CitedDavidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
CitedTweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland HL 13-Dec-2006
(Northern Ireland) The applicant sought judicial review of a decision not to disclose documents held by the respondent to him saying that the refusal was disproportionate and infringed his human rights. The respondents said that the documents were . .
AppliedKing v East Ayrshire Council IHCS 3-Nov-1997
An application for the closure of a school need not be based upon an assessment of school’s pupil capacity as at time of assessment. The court may exercise its discretion to refuse judicial review where that is appropriate, having regard to the . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
CitedSher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
CitedLumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
CitedBubb v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 9-Nov-2011
The appellant had sought housing assistance. She had been offered accomodation but refused it as unreasonable. The authority declined further assistance. She now appealed against the refusal of the county court judge to set aside the decision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Judicial Review, Prisons

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.182909

Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll Group plc: CA 14 Mar 1986

Weighing Interest of Seeker of Judicial Review

The court recast in simpler language the provision in section 75 empowering the Secretary of State to make a merger reference to the Commission: ‘where it appears to him that it is or may be the fact that arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a merger situation qualifying for investigation.’
The test for the issue of judicial review proceedings was set out as follows: ‘The first stage test, which is applied upon the application for leave, will lead to a refusal if the applicant has no interest whatsoever and is, in truth, no more than a meddlesome busybody. If, however, the application appears to be otherwise arguable and there is no other discretionary bar, such as dilatoriness on the part of the applicant, the applicant may expect to get leave to apply, leaving the test of interest or standing to be re-applied as a matter of discretion on the hearing of the substantive application. At this second stage, the strength of the applicant’s interest is one of the factors to be weighed in the balance.’
‘Good public administration requires decisiveness and finality, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Dillon LJ, Neill LJ
[1986] 1 WLR 763, [1987] QB 815, (1986) 2 BCC 99086, [1986] EWCA Civ 8, [1986] 2 All ER 257
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 31(3)
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 . .
CitedBrown v HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, the Executors of the Estate of and others FD 5-Jul-2007
The plaintiff sought the unsealing of the wills of the late Queen Mother and of the late Princess Margaret, claiming that these would assist him establishing that he was the illegitimate son of the latter.
Held: The application was frivolous. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte the World Development Movement Ltd Admn 10-Nov-1994
The Movement sought to challenge decisions of the Secretary of state to give economic aid to the Pergau Dam, saying that it was not required ‘for the purpose of promoting the development’ of Malaysia. It was said to be uneconomic and damaging. It . .
CitedRegina v Cotswold District Council and others ex parte Barrington Parish Council Admn 24-Apr-1997
The parish council sought judicial review of the district council’s planning decision. The respondents complained at the lack of promptness in the application, and suggested a lack of standing to complain. . .
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.194045

Regina v Take-over Panel, ex parte Datafin PLC: CA 1986

Amenability to judicial review

The issue of amenability to judicial review often requires an examination of the nature of the power under challenge as well as its source: ‘In all the reports it is possible to find enumerations of factors giving rise to the jurisdiction [of judicial review], but it is a fatal error to regard the presence of all those factors as essential or as being exclusive of other factors. Possibly the only essential elements are what can be described as a public element, which can take many different forms, and the exclusion from the jurisdiction of bodies whose sole source of power is a consensual submission to its jurisdiction.’ Where the source of the power did not clearly provide the answer, then the nature of the power fell to be examined.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its functions have public law consequences, then that may, as Mr Lever submitted, be sufficient to bring the body within the reach of judicial review. It may be said that to refer to ‘public law’ in this context is to beg the question. But I do not think it does. The essential distinction, which runs through all the cases to which we were referred, is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other’.
An unincorporated association may be amenable to judicial review, where it would otherwise be ‘without legal personality’.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘In all the reports it is possible to find enumerations of factors giving rise to the jurisdiction, but it is a fatal error to regard the presence of all those factors as essential or as being exclusive of other factors. Possibly the only essential elements are what can be described are a public element, which can take many different forms, and the exclusion from the jurisdiction of bodies whose sole source of power is a consensual submission to its jurisdiction.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Lloyd LJ
[1987] 1 QB 815, [1986] 2 All ER 257, [1986] 1 WLR 763, (1986) 2 BCC 99086, [1986] EWCA Civ 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
CitedHampshire County Council v Beer (T/A Hammer Trout Farm); Regina (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers’ Market Ltd CA 21-Jul-2003
The applicant had been refused a licence to operate within the farmer’s market. It sought judicial review of the rejection, but the respondent argued that it was a private company not susceptible to review.
Held: The decisions of the Farmers . .
CitedRoyal Mail Group Plc v The Consumer Council for Postal Services CA 7-Mar-2007
The Royal Mail appealed a grant of judicial review of the decision of the Post regulator not to penalise the company for its failure to meet its service conditions as regards enforcement of credit terms for bulk mail customers.
Held: The . .
CitedBoyle, Regina (On the Application of) v Haverhill Pub Watch and Others Admn 8-Oct-2009
The claimant had been banned from public houses under the Haverhill Pub Watch scheme. He now sought judicial review of a decision to extend his ban for a further two years. The Scheme argued that it was not a body amenable to judicial review, and . .
CitedRegina (Tucker) v Director General of the National Crime Squad CA 17-Jan-2003
The applicant was a senior officer seconded to the National Crime Squad. He complained that his secondment had been terminated in a manner which was unfair, and left him tainted without opportunity to reply. He appealed against rejection of his . .
CitedRegina v The Imam of Bury Park Mosque, Luton and others ex parte Sualiman Ali CA 12-May-1993
The court had been asked to intervene in an internal dispute as to the role of an Imam in a mosque community.
Held: The request was denied. The case was not one of public law: ‘ the particular function which the Imam was performing affected . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.181976

Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application: CA 25 Feb 1957

The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In its decision the tribunal had made reference to the expert medical report and thereby had incorporated it in the judgment. This resulted in an error being apparent on the face of the record, thus allowing the appeal court to intervene and make an order of certiorari. The words of the statute, that any decision of a medical appeal tribunal of a question arising under the Act ‘shall be final’, were insufficiently clear to prevent such an order.
Such jurisdiction was well established. Denning LJ said: ‘On looking . . into the old books I find it very well settled that the remedy of certiorari is never to be taken away by any statute except by the most clear and explicit words. The word ‘final’ is not enough. That only means ‘without appeal’. It does not mean ‘without recourse to certiorari’. It makes the decision final on the facts, but not final on the law. . All the authorities to which we have been referred indicate that this remains true today’.

Denning LJ, Romer LJ, Parker LJ
[1957] 1 QB 574, [1957] 1 All ER 796, [1957] EWCA Civ 1, [1957] 2 WLR 498
Bailii
National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Benefit) Regulations 1948 2(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRex v Plowright 1686
The collectors of chimney tax distrained on the landlord of a cottage. The applicable Act provided that any question about such distress should be ‘heard and finally determined by one or more justices . . ‘ The decision of the justices was in error . .
CitedRex v Warnford 1825
The courts have power to order an inferior court to complete or correct an imperfect record. . .
CitedWilliams v Lord Bagot (2) 1824
Abbott CJ: ‘If an inferior court . . send up an incomplete record, we may order them to complete it . . If we are not to order, or allowthe officers of the court below to make a perfect record, which unquestionably they are at liberty to do, it will . .
CitedFoster’s Case 1614
The words of an Act of parliament ‘shall not bind the King’s Bench, because the pleas there are coram ipso Rege.’ . .
CitedSmith’s Case 1670
An order of the Commissioners of Sewers was brought before the court. The commissioners pointed to a statute which provided that they should not be compelled to certify or return their proceedings.
Held: The contention was rejected: ‘Yet it . .
CitedGrenville v Royal College of Physicians 1700
. .
CitedTaylor (formerly Kraupl) v National Assistance Board CA 1951
Lord Denning spoke as to the power of a court to issue a declaration, ‘The remedy is not excluded by the fact that the determination of the board is by statute made ‘final’. Parliament gives the impress of finality to the decisions of the board only . .
CitedEdwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
CitedRex v Moreley, Rex v Osborne, Rex v Reeve, Rex v Norris 1760
The Conventicle Act said ‘that no other court whatsoever shall intermeddle with any cause or causes of appeal upon this Act: but they shall be finally determined in the quarter sessions only.’
Held: Certiorari was nevertheless ordered: ‘The . .
CitedRegina v National Insurance Commissioners, ex parte Timmis QBD 1954
A decision of the Commisioners was said by statute to be final, an accordingly certiorari was not available. . .
CitedRex v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd PC 7-Apr-1922
(Alberta) Lord Sumner said: ‘Long before Jervis’s Acts statutes had been passed which created an inferior court, and declared its decisions to be ‘final’ and ‘without appeal’, and again and again the Court of the King’s Bench had held that the . .
CitedRex v Jukes 1800
A conviction by magistrates was said to be erroneous on its face, having failed to exclude a possible defence. The prosecutor objected to an application that it be quashed, saying ‘that the defendant having elected to appeal to the sessions, the . .
CitedRex v Cashiobury Hunderd Justices KBD 1823
The court looked to the ouster of the its jurisdiction to issue an order of certiorari to a lower court ‘certiorari always lies, unless it expressly taken away, and an appeal never lies, unless it is expressly given by the statute . . .’ . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
CitedSivasubramaniam v Wandsworth County Court, Management of Guildford College of Further and Higher Education and Another CA 28-Nov-2002
Having had various claims made in county courts rejected, the applicant was then refused leave to appeal. He sought judicial review of the refusal to give leave to appeal, and now appealed the refusal of leave to apply for a judicial review.
CitedIn re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
CitedSinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market . .
CitedCart and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others Admn 1-Dec-2009
The court was asked whether the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, exercisable by way of judicial review, extends to such decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) as are not amenable to any . .
CitedEBA v Advocate General for Scotland SC 21-Jun-2011
The appellant had sought to challenge refusal of disability living allowance. Ultimately her request a judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decion was rejected on the basis that the UT, being a court of superior record, was not susceptible to . .
CitedAnisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.197036

Cocks v Thanet District Council: HL 25 Nov 1981

The applicant had been given temporary accomodation under the Act. He sought to enforce the obligation on the respondent to house him permanently by an action in the county court. The authority said the action should have been by judicial review.
Held: Where the action impugned the authority’s performance of its statutory duties as a pre-condition to enforcing private law rights, the correct way was to do so within judicial review proceedings. The authority’s decision could not be challenged by an ordinary action. The House attached particular importance to the protection given to public authorities by Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to the extent that leave to bring proceedings was required and a time limit imposed subject to good reason for extending it.

Lord Bridge
[1983] 2 AC 286, [1982] 3 WLR 1121, [1982] 3 All ER 1135, [1981] UKHL 10
Bailii
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedO’Reilly v Mackman HL 1982
Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right
The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time . .

Cited by:
AppliedO’Rourke v Mayor etc of the London Borough of Camden HL 12-Jun-1997
The claimant had been released from prison and sought to be housed as a homeless person. He said that his imprisonment brought him within the category of having special need. He also claimed damages for the breach.
Held: The Act was intended . .
CitedSteed v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-May-2000
The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a . .
CitedMohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
CitedHussain v Mehlman CC 5-Mar-1992
(County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .
CitedRuddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police and Another SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer said that he had been assaulted whilst in the custody of the responder’s officers. He began civil actions after his complaint was rejected. He repeated the allegation of the assault, and complained also as to the conduct of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.180465

SSP Health Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Care Quality Commission: Admn 12 Aug 2016

Redress for unamended report

‘Suppose that a regulator, charged by Parliament with the responsibility for the assessment and rating of certain bodies providing services to the public, affords an inspected entity the opportunity to make factual corrections to its draft report prior to publication. The report proposes to make adverse fact findings that could be demonstrated by objective evidence to be incorrect, misleading, or unfair, but the regulator refuses to change the draft when the errors are pointed out to it. In the absence of any appeal process, what redress does the aggrieved party have?’
Held: Damages including interest were awarded.

Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2086 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At AdmnSSP Health Ltd v The National Health Service Litigation Authority (Primary Care Appeals Service) and Others CA 25-Nov-2020
The issue on this appeal is whether an adjudicator appointed to resolve a dispute under an NHS contract made a lawful decision not to award interest on sums that she considered due. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.568842

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain v Charity Commission: Admn 12 Dec 2014

The respondent had instigated a statutory inquiry under the 2011 Act into the claimant’s child safeguarding practices, and policies after compaints made to it. The Society now sought judicial review of that decision, and to production orders made to support it. The respondent argued that the Charity should first use the statutory remedies available to it in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The matter would clearly require consideration of assorted Human Rights issues, but the First tier tribunal would be able to include such matters. The courtw as accordingly satisfied that the discretion to allow judicial review should not be exercised.

Dove J
[2014] EWHC 4135 (Admin)
Bailii
Charities Act 2011 46
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBaker, Regina (on the Application of) v Devon County Council CA 21-Dec-1992
The plaintiffs appealed against orders dismissing claims for judicial review. They had challenged the intended closure of residential homes for old people. The plaintiffs said that there had been inadequate consultation, and the Councils argued that . .
CitedLeech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison HL 1988
The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review.
Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; . .
CitedRegina v Devon County Council Ex Parte Baker, Regina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Broxson CA 22-Feb-1993
A Local Authority considering closing a residential home did not have a duty to notify and consult with each resident who might be affected, but did have a duty to act fairly, and to give sufficiently prominent notice and sufficient time to allow . .
CitedShoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
CitedRegina (Great Yarmouth Port Company Limited) v Marine Management Organisation CA 2013
There is a presumption that the bespoke statutory regime will be deployed unless there are clear and powerful reasons which exceptionally justify judicial review being permitted. . .
CitedWillford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .
CitedWillford, Regina (on The Application of) v Financial Services Authority (FSA) CA 13-Jun-2013
Where a separate specialist statutory regime has been established by Parliament, there would need to be powerful reasons or exceptional circumstances to bypass that regime and permit an application for judicial review.
The Court considered and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Charity, Judicial Review

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.542591