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The Petitioners sought a declaration that the Article 50 notice given by the UK government could be withdrawn by the UK without the consent of the EU.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

Law v National Greyhound Racing Club Limited: CA 29 Jul 1983

The plaintiff alleged abuse of the discretion conferred on the club by the rules. His trainer’s licence had been suspended. He said that it was contrary to an implied term of an agreement between the trainer and the racing club that any action taken would be reasonable and fair and made on reasonable grounds. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of invalidity of the decision. The question before the court, was whether the special procedures which Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court applied to applications for judicial review should have been followed.
Held: The power of the Stewards of the respondent racing club to impose penalties for breach of the Rules on owners of greyhounds, derives from a contract between the NGRC and owners and all those who took part in greyhound racing in stadia licensed by the NGRC. The status of the stewards was that of a domestic tribunal. By Rule 2 every owner and holder of a licence is deemed to have read the Rules and to submit himself to them.
The National Greyhound Racing Club was not amenable to judicial review. It was a matter of private law which could be dealt with by originating summons
Lawton LJ said: ‘A stewards’ inquiry under the defendants’ Rules of Racing concerned only those who voluntarily submitted themselves to the stewards’ jurisdiction. There was no public element in the jurisdiction itself. Its exercise, however, could have consequences from which the public benefited, as, for example by the stamping out of malpractices, and from which individuals might have their rights restricted by, for example, being prevented from employing a trainer whose licence had been suspended. Consequences affecting the public generally can flow from the decisions of many domestic tribunals . . the courts have always refused to use the orders of certiorari to review the decisions of domestic tribunals.’ and ‘In my judgment, such powers as the stewards had to suspend the plaintiff’s licence were derived from a contract between him and the defendants. This was so for all who took part in greyhound racing in stadia licensed by the defendants. A stewards’ enquiry under the defendants’ Rules of Racing concerned only those who voluntarily submitted themselves to the stewards’ jurisdiction. There was no public element in the jurisdiction itself.’
Fox LJ said: ‘Accordingly, in my view, the authority of the stewards to suspend the license of the plaintiff derives wholly from a contract between him and the defendants. I see nothing to suggest that the defendants have rights or duties relating to members of the public as such. What the defendants do in relation to the control of greyhound racing may affect the public, or a section of it, but the defendants’ powers in relation to the matters with which this case is concerned are contractual.’
Slade LJ said: ‘the rules of racing of the NGRC and its decision to suspend the plaintiff in purported compliance with those rules have not been made in the field of public law. Furthermore, its authority to perform judicial or quasi judicial functions in respect of persons holding licenses from it is not derived from statute or statutory instruments or from the Crown. It is derived solely from contract. Rule 2 of the NGRC’s Rules of Racing provides that every person who is the holder of a license shall be deemed to have read the rules and to submit himself to them and to the jurisdiction of the NGRC. The relief, by way of declaration and injunction, sought by the plaintiff in his originating summons is correspondingly based primarily and explicitly on alleged breach of contract.’

Lawton, Fox, Slade LLJ
[1983] 1 WLR 1302, [1983] EWCA Civ 6, [1983] 3 All ER 300
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFlaherty v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd CA 14-Sep-2005
The club regulated greyhound racing. The claimant had complained that its disciplinary proceedings had been conducted unfairly. He said that a panel member had an interest as veterinary surgeon in the proceedings at the stadium at which the alleged . .
CitedRegina v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan CA 4-Dec-1992
No Judicial Review of Decisions of Private Body
Despite the wide range of its powers, the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club remains a domestic tribunal. Judicial review is not available to a member. Tne relationship is in contract between the club and its member. Sir Thomas Bingham MR: . .
CitedMullins, Regina (on the Application of) v The Jockey Club Admn 17-Oct-2005
The claimant’s horse had been found after a race to have morphine in his system. It was not thought that the claimant was at fault, but the horse was disqualifed. He sought judicial review of the decision.
Held: The decision was a disciplinary . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.220132

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

hillingdon_royco1974

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.’

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

Planning, Judicial Review

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471207

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.’

Sir John Donaldson, Parker LJ
[1986] 2 All ER 941
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: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.251563

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for which a prosecution was authorised was framed so as to breach the accused’s human rights was to be pursued at trial, and not by this form of challenge. The degree of deference to, and/or of recognition of the special competence of, the decision-maker is less and, correspondingly, the intensity of the Court’s review is greater – perhaps greatest in an Article 2 case – than for those human rights where the Convention requires a balance to be struck. In considering where the balance lies it may be useful to consider the following questions: (1) what does the prosecution have to prove in order to transfer the onus to the defence? (2) what is the burden on the accused – does it relate to something which is likely to be difficult for him to prove, or does it relate to something which is likely to be within his knowledge or (I would add) to which he readily has access (3) what is the nature of the threat faced by society which the provision is designed to combat?

Lord Hope, Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Times 02-Nov-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [1999] UKHL 43, [2000] 2 AC 326, [1999] 3 WLR 972, [2000] Crim LR 486, [1999] 4 All ER 801, [2000] 1 Cr App Rep 275, (1999) 11 Admin LR 1026, (2000) 2 LGLR 697, [2000] HRLR 93, [2000] UKHRR 176
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 19(1)(aa), European Convention on Human Rights 2, Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene etc Admn 30-Mar-1999
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act.
Held: The Act . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
CitedIn re Smalley HL 1985
Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for . .
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court and Ashton and Others, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions HL 7-May-1993
A Crown Court decision to stay an indictment for lack of jurisdiction, was not susceptible to Judicial Review. This was a ‘decision affecting conduct of trial’. The House considered the meaning of the phrase ‘other than its jurisdiction in matters . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .

Cited by:
CitedParker v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Dec-2000
The irrebuttable presumption contained in the Act that the level of alcohol contained in the accused’s blood at the time when he was stopped was no less than the level measured later that the police station, was not incompatible with the defendant’s . .
CitedRegina v Clive Louden Carass CACD 19-Dec-2001
When a defendant was accused of an offence under the section, and wished to raise a defence under sub-section 4, the duty of proof placed on him by the sub-section amounted to a duty to bring sufficient evidence to raise the defence, and the section . .
CitedDavies v Health and Safety Executive CA 18-Dec-2002
The defendant complained that section 40 imposed a burden of proof upon him which infringed the presumption of innocence and his right to a fair trial. The trial judge held that the burden imposed a legal burden rather than an evidential one.
CitedRegina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
CitedBloggs 61, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 18-Jun-2003
The applicant sought review of a decision to remove him from a witness protection scheme within the prison. He claimed that having been promised protection, he had a legitimate expectation of protection, having been told he would receive protection . .
CitedRegina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General ex parte Rusbridger and Another HL 26-Jun-2003
Limit to Declaratory Refilef as to Future Acts
The applicant newspaper editor wanted to campaign for a republican government. Articles were published, and he sought confirmation that he would not be prosecuted under the Act, in the light of the 1998 Act.
Held: Declaratory relief as to the . .
CitedNorwood v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 3-Jul-2003
The appellant a BNP member had displayed a large poster in his bedroom window saying ‘Islam out of Britain’. He was convicted of an aggravated attempt to cause alarm or distress. The offence was established on proof of several matters, unless the . .
CitedCarson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 17-Jun-2003
The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
CitedLynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Nov-2001
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
CitedSamaroo and Sezek v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Jul-2001
Two foreign nationals with leave to remain in this country committed serious crimes. The Secretary of State ordered their deportation.
Held: Where the deportation of a foreigner following a conviction here, would conflict with his human . .
CitedRegina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Gjovalin Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 11-May-2004
The claimant was stopped when boarding a flight to Canada, having previously stopped in France and Italy. He bore a false Swedish passport, and intended to claim asylum in Canada. He now claimed the benefit of the article 31 (per Adimi), to defend a . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedEvans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
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 . .
CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedA, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 25-Jun-2001
The applicant, who feared for his life if identified, sought the release to him of materials discovered by the police in searching premises associated with a loyalist paramiliitary group. He thought that they might include information sourced form . .
CitedPrice and others v Leeds City Council CA 16-Mar-2005
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life.
Held: There had been . .
CitedCarson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
CitedAxon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
CitedBegum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
CitedBermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
CitedRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
CitedOfulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
CitedRegina v G; Regina v J HL 4-Mar-2009
G was to stand trial for possession of articles useful for terrorism. Whilst in prison, he collected and created diagrams and information and prepared plans to bomb a local army centre. When arrested he said he had done so to upset the prison . .
CitedE and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Jun-2011
Judicial review was sought of a decision by the respondent to prosecute a child for her alleged sexual abuse of her younger sisters. Agencies other than the police and CPS considered that a prosecution would harm both the applicant and her sisters. . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
CitedSteinfeld and Another v Secretary of State for Education CA 21-Feb-2017
Hetero Partnerships – wait and see proportionate
The claimants, a heterosexual couple complained that their inability to have a civil partnership was an unlawful discrimination against them and a denial of their Article 8 rights. The argument that the appellants’ case did not come within the ambit . .
CitedRegina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
CitedHuman Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Judicial Review, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.159025

Stojak, Regina (on The Application of) v Sheffield City Council: Admn 22 Dec 2009

The deceased had been detained as a mental patient and supported after her release, by her family financially. Her representatives now said that the respondent had failed in its obligation to provide support for no charge. The authority said that the case brought by way of judicial review was brought out of time.
Held: The authority had sought out people to whom such support should have been given but had failed to find the deceased. However the claimant had initially failed to pursue the matter by way of judicial review, wrongly awaiting the outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman’s report, and time to claim should not be extended.

Grenfell S P
[2009] EWHC 3412 (Admin)
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983 117
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Education Committee of Blackpool Borough Council ex parte Taylor 1999
The court emphasised that a party considering challenging by way of a judicial review a local government decision should not first await the outcome of a reference to the Local Government Ombudsman, since he has no power to set aside the decision. . .
MentionedRegina v Richmond London Borough Council, Ex Parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex Parte Armstrong etc Admn 15-Oct-1999
. .
CitedRegina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc HL 25-Jul-2002
The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Health, Judicial Review

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.384461

Ryan and Another v Friction Dynamics Ltd and others: ChD 14 Jun 2000

When granting asset freezing orders in support of proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction the court should exercise caution, particularly under the section since the court would not have full knowledge of the issues. Where good grounds existed, and comity required a court to grant an order, the requirements of risk of dissipation, and of a good case must be met; an order might be made even if refused by a foreign court, and the existence of a world-wide order already did not prevent an English court granting a local order.
Times 14-Jun-2000
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25
England and Wales

Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.88941

Regina v Birmingham Coroner’s Court Ex Parte Najada: CA 4 Dec 1995

At the inquest, the coroner had quizzed the applicant about his evidence but had not warned him, as he was required to do, about the possibility of self incrimination. The doctor then sought a review of the coroner’s verdict. The coroner now applied to have the judicial review adjourned pending the conclusion of other, criminal proceedings.
Held: It was for the person seeking to have a judicial review adjourned to justify the request. The applicant had a right to have it said that the coroner’s verdict had had A judicial review case should normally to be heard straight away, but it may be delayed to await the outcome of a criminal trial. If the applicant succeded at the criminal trial, the judicial review need not proceed in any event. The judge’s order adjourning the judicial review was upheld.
Neill, Auld, Iain Glidewell LJJ
Times 05-Dec-1995, Ind Summary 04-Dec-1995
England and Wales

Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.86140

Michalak v General Medical Council and Others: SC 1 Nov 2017

Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in her favour. The GMC now said that the availability of judicial review excluded her right to commence proceedings before the Employment Tribunal by virtue of section 120 of the 2010 Act.
Held: The GMC’s appeal failed. Judicial review in the context of the present case is not in the nature of an appeal. Nor is it a remedy provided by reason of an enactment.
Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore;, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes JJSC
[2017] UKSC 71, [2017] 1 WLR 4193, (2018) 159 BMLR 1, [2018] 1 All ER 463, [2018] ICR 49, [2018] IRLR 60, [2017] WLR(D) 734, UKSC 2016/0084
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 07 04 am Video, SC 2017 07 04 pm Video, Bailii Summary
Equality Act 2010 120(7), Senior Courts Act 1981 31(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At EATThe General Medical Council v Dickson, Haywood, Dr Michalak EAT 25-Nov-2014
The Claimant complained to an Employment Tribunal that she had been discriminated against by the GMC (a qualifications body). The GMC contended that section 120(7) Equality Act precluded jurisdiction, since judicial review afforded an appeal for the . .
See AlsoMichalak, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council Admn 22-Jul-2011
Dr M sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to continue its investigation of her by the Fitness to Practice panel. That panel, after hearing substantial evidence had to restart on the panel medical member was unable to continue with . .
CitedKennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
CitedPham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
CitedKeyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Appeal fromMichalak v The General Medical Council and Others CA 23-Mar-2016
The court considered the remedies and routes of appeal available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimisation, harassment or detriment in the treatment that they have received from a qualifications body. In . .
CitedKhan v General Medical Council CA 11-Apr-1994
The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the . .
CitedTariquez-Zaman v General Medical Council EAT 20-Dec-2006
EAT Race Discrimination – Discrimination by other bodies
Practice and Procedure – Amendment
(a) The Employment Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s case brought under the . .
Dictum disapprovedJooste v General Medical Council and Others EAT 4-Jul-2012
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Costs
The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s claims as having no . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
CitedCart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedDatec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .

Cited by:
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.598455

Regina v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd: QBD 9 Dec 1992

An injunction was not granted to restrain the publication of a decision of the ASA pending the result of a challenge by way of Judicial Review. There is a general principle in our law that the expression of opinion and the conveyance of information will not be restrained by the courts save on pressing grounds. Freedom of expression is as much a sinew of the common law as it is of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Laws J said: ‘If a private individual will not be restrained from expressing his opinion save on pressing grounds I see no reason why a public body having a duty, other things being equal, to express its opinion should be subject to any less rigid rules. It seems to me that the case is, if anything, analogous to one where an administrative body has an adjudicative function and in the course of its duties publishes a ruling criticising some affected person and the ruling is later disturbed or reversed by an appropriate appellate process. There are many such instances and many of them involve the criticism of members of the public, corporate or natural.
I do not know of an instance in which a public body of that kind would fall to be restrained from carrying out what is no more nor less than its ordinary, but important, everyday duties simply upon the grounds that the intended publication contains material which is subject to legal challenge as being vitiated by some error of law. If the application for judicial review here is successful I cannot think but that there are ample means at the applicant’s disposal to correct any adverse impression which what, ex hypothesi, would be an unlawful report may have given to the public. Indeed, though it has not been canvassed in argument, I know of no reason why the fact that they have obtained leave should not itself be disseminated if they wish to take any steps in that direction since this is an attempt to prevent the public and indeed, in fairness to the applicant, its fellow advertisers and others in the trade to which it belongs from seeing that the authority has reached those conclusions. I do not consider that the effects of that publication are damaging to the applicant in a manner which would be so irreparable, so past recall as to amount to a pressing ground, in the language of Strasbourg, a pressing social need, to restrain this public body from carrying out its function in the ordinary way.’
Laws J
Gazette 09-Dec-1992, [1992] 1 WLR 1289, [1993] 2 All ER 202
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDouglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
CitedRegina v Advertising Standards Authority Limited ex parte Direct Line Financial Services Limited Admn 8-Aug-1997
An ex parte application was made to quash a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority upholding a complaint that the applicants in that case were in breach of the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, and an injunction to prevent . .
CitedDebt Free Direct Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Admn 15-May-2007
The claimant sought continuation of a without notice interim injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing its findings on a complaint against the claimant. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.86039

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Ex Parte Al-Fayed: CA 5 Nov 1997

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had published a report relating to a complaint by the applicant against a Member of Parliament.
Held: The applicant sought permission to challenge this by judicial review. The applicant’s appeal failed. No judicial review was possible of the workings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards despite the absence of any Appeal from his findings. To allow a judicial review would be to impugn the House of Commons. Lord Woolf MR said: ‘Activities of government are the basic fare of judicial review. Activities of Parliament are not the basic fare of judicial review. Indeed activities of Parliament are accepted in general by Mr. Pannick to be not subject to judicial review. If I may put it this way, if what was being sought here was judicial review of the Standing Committee responsible for supervising the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Mr. Pannick would accept that judicial review was not available.’ and ‘The focus of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is on the propriety of the workings and the activities of those engaged within Parliament. He is one of the means by which the select committee set up by the House carries out its functions, which are accepted to be part of the proceedings of the House. This being the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, it would be inappropriate for this court to use its supervisory powers to control what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does in relation to an investigation of this sort. The responsibility for supervising the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is placed by Parliament, through its standing orders, on the Committee of Standards and Privileges of the House, and it is for that body to perform that role and not the courts.’
Lord Woolf MR
Gazette 05-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2488, [1998] 1 WLR 669, [1998] 1 All ER 93
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHamilton v Al Fayed HL 23-Mar-2000
The claimant MP sued the defendant in defamation after he had alleged that the MP had corruptly solicited and received payments and benefits in kind as a reward for parliamentary services rendered.
Held: Parliament has protected by privilege . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2010
The defendants had been members of the Houses of Commons and of Lords. They faced charges of dishonesty in respect of their expenses claims. They now appealed a finding that they were not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under . .
CitedChaytor and Others, Regina v SC 1-Dec-2010
The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.87524

Regina 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 the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.
Gazette 15-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 20-Feb-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1995] EMLR 16
Broadcasting Act 1990 143
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina 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. . .

Cited 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: . .
CitedCTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (1) QBD 16-May-2011
ctb_newsQBD11
A leading footballer had obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from publishing his identity and allegations of sexual misconduct. The claimant said that she had demanded money not to go public.
Held: It had not been suggested that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.86221

In Re E (No 2): CA 11 Aug 1994

The claimant was subject to a cvil proceedings order, requiring to obtain leave before issuing proceedings. He now sought to appeal a finding against him that he should have sought such permission before applying for permission to issue judicial review proceedings.
Held: The Court of Appeal may not hear an appeal from a refusal of leave to a vexatious litigant to issue proceedings. Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘The proper way to deal with the matter, in my judgment, is that, upon an application being made by someone to whom section 42 applies for leave to apply for the judicial review of the decision, the matter should be placed before one of the judges who habitually deal with applications for leave under Ord. 53 r. 3 and that he should consider the matter on the footing that he is faced with an application under the section 42 order and an application under Order 53. If he decides that there is a case for giving leave under Order 53, he will of course have no difficulty in deciding that it is a case in which he should also give leave under the section 42 order, and he should give both leaves. If he decides that there is no case for giving leave under Order 53 he equally will have no difficulty in refusing leave under the section 42 order.
It is at the next stage that things will be different according to whether or not he has given leave under the section 42 order. If he refuses leave under the section 42 order, that is the end of the matter, because there is no right of appeal . . If he gives leave, the respondent will be unable to attack the leave under section 42 because that is final, but he may be able to attack the leave under Order 53. At that stage the vexatious litigant, having obtained his leave under section 42, will be treated in all respects as if he were not subject to the order.’
There is generally no appeal against a refusal of leave to commence proceedings to somebody deemed a vexatious litigant.
Lord Donaldson MR
Times 11-Aug-1994, Ind Summary 15-Aug-1994
Supreme Court Act 1981 42
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81871

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Balbo B and C Auto Transporti Internazionali: Admn 22 Mar 2001

Where a notice of liability was served on a transport operator with regard to his responsibility for transporting illegal immigrants into the country, and he wished to challenge it, the proper approach was to allow the notice to expire, and then to defend any proceedings brought. Given that way of dealing with it, it was not appropriate to challenge the notice itself by way of judicial review. The form of notice issued after review did not refer to the Secretary of State’s need to pursue his remedy through the courts. This was unfortunate, but if it were true, it would make him judge and jury in his own cause.
Gazette 11-May-2001, Times 22-Mar-2001, [2001] EWHC Admin 195, [2001] 1 WLR 1556
Bailii
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 34
England and Wales

Updated: 08 April 2021; Ref: scu.88650

Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 23 Nov 1989

The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault of that party or his advisor was not one obtained in breach of the rules of natural justice for the purpose of judicial review. The loss of his right to be heard was not a procedural impropriety or denial of natural justice. Nor was he entitled to certiorari. In the public law context of removal from the jurisdiction of an alien, a litigant must answer for the failings of his legal advisers.
Lord Bridge said that any other decision would come ‘at the cost of opening such a wide door which would indeed seriously undermine the principle of finality in decision-making.’
The respondent was an Iraqi student who overstayed his leave to remain in the United Kingdom. When he was served with a notice of the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him he instructed solicitors to lodge an appeal. When a hearing date for the appeal was fixed the solicitors wrote to notify him of the date but negligently sent the letter to his previous address and the respondent never received it. The adjudicator subsequently dismissed the appeal on the basis of the documents before him since neither the respondent nor his solicitors had appeared. When the solicitors received notice of the dismissal they again misaddressed the communication intended to inform the respondent of the result, so that by the time he knew of the dismissal of his appeal it was too late for him to appeal further against the adjudicator’s decision. The respondent applied for, and was granted, certiorari to quash the adjudicator’s decision, the judge holding that he was bound by a previous decision of the Court of Appeal which decided that certiorari ought to be granted where the negligence of the applicant’s solicitors had deprived him of an oral hearing. The judge’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the House of Lords.
Held — A party to a dispute who had been afforded an opportunity of presenting his case to the person deciding the dispute but who had lost the opportunity to have his case heard through the fault of the legal advisers to whom he had entrusted the conduct of the dispute on his behalf could not complain that he had been the victim of a procedural impropriety or that natural justice had been denied to him, and it made no difference whether the matter in dispute raised private law or public law issues. Accordingly, the respondent was not entitled to judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision and the Secretary of State’s appeal would therefore be allowed.
Lord Bridge, Lord Roskill, Lord Brandon, Lord Oliver, Lord Goff
[1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, [1989] UKHL 7
Bailii
Immigtaion Act 1971 21
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust CA 1973
. .
OverruledRahmani and Others v Diggines HL 20-Mar-1986
The Court of Appeal had overturned the rejection of an administrative appeal from a deportation decision, on the ground that there had been a denial of natural justice when the person involved in an administrative appeal did not attend the hearing . .
OverruledRegina v Diggines, ex parte Rahmani CA 1985
R, had failed to attend the hearing of her appeal from a refusal to extend her stay in the UK. Her advisers had failed to note her new address and had been unable to notify her of the hearing. The appeal was dismissed in her absence. The adjudicator . .

Cited by:
CitedMaqsood v The Special Adjudicator, The Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 3-Dec-2001
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to proceed with his appeal in his absence. He, his advisers and his witness had gone to the wrong court. The court had changed the venue from previous hearings, but the notice of hearing had not . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ayres Admn 20-Oct-2004
The prosecutor appealed a decision of the magistrates to dismiss the case for abuse of process, having failed to comply with several and repeated directions as to the management of the case. He said that he had not been given opportunity to make . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Haile CA 2002
The adjudicator in the asylum application had made a crucial mistake about the identity of the political party in Ethiopia, with which the claimant was connected. The error was not drawn to the attention of the IAT. The evidence necessary to prove . .
CitedFP (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-Jan-2007
The claimants said that rules which allowed an appeal tribunal to proceed in their absence when they were absent through no fault of their own, were unlawful in depriving them of a fair trial. The claimants had each moved house but their former . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
CitedHelena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
helena_hmrcCA2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
AppliedFormosa Plastics Corporation USA v Chauhan and others CA 6-Apr-1998
The defendant sought a second adjournment of his application for leave to appeal against summary judgment for $21m with interest in respect of a judgment obtained in Texas. The defendant was said to have given his personal guarantee for the purchase . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.180545

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v The Parole Board: CA 14 Jul 2017

Does the established practice of the High Court, to make no order for costs for or against an inferior tribunal or court which plays no active part in a judicial review of one of its decisions, extend to the Board?
Gloster VP CA, David Richards, Kickinbottom LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1003, [2017] 1 WLR 4107, [2017] WLR(D) 474
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
First Instance main judgmentRegina on the Application of Davies (No 2) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham CA 27-Feb-2004
The claimant appealed against a costs order. She had previously appealed against an order of the High Court on her application for judicial review of the inquest held by the respondent.
Held: The coroner, and others in a similar position . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromGourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board SC 4-Dec-2020
The appellant life prisoner had successfully challenged a decision of the parole board, but had later been refused his costs on the basis that the Board had been acting in effect as a judicial body. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.589928

Buglife, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England: Admn 30 Mar 2011

The court established a new principle (concerning time limits for starting judicial review proceedings and the effect of the ECJ’s decision in Uniplex) and extended the law (concerning multi-stage EIAs provided for by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008).
Anthony Thornton QC J
[2011] EWHC 746 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.440073

Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: CA 4 Nov 2003

The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the standing of the applicant to seek review of the decision. The judge acknowledged the possibility that the applicant had only his private interests at heart, but considered that he could proceed because of the significance of the decision under review. The applicant’s motive was capable of being relevant, but was not such here as to make the application an abuse.
Dyson LJ addressed the question of abuse of process in the context of Judicial Review proceedings, saying: ‘In my judgment, if a claimant has no sufficient private interest to support a claim to standing, then he should not be accorded standing merely because he raises an issue in which there is, objectively speaking, a public interest. As Sedley J said in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Dixon [1997] JPL 1030, when considering the issue of standing, the court had to ensure that the claimant was not prompted by an ill motive, and was not a mere busybody or a trouble-maker. Thus, if a claimant seeks to challenge a decision in which he has no private law interest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the court will accord him standing, even where there is a public interest in testing the lawfulness of the decision, if the claimant is acting out of ill-will or for some other improper purpose. It is an abuse of process to permit a claimant to bring a claim in such circumstances. If the real reason why a claimant wishes to challenge a decision in which, objectively, there is a public interest is not that he has a genuine concern about the decision, but some other reason, then that is material to the question whether he should be accorded standing.’
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson
[2003] EWCA Civ 1546, Times 07-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1761
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMount Cook Land Ltd and Another v Westminster City Council CA 14-Oct-2003
The applicants had sought judicial review of the defendant’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of the former CandA building in Oxford Street. Though the application for leave to apply had been successful, and a full hearing took . .
Appeal fromFeakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
The farmer complained that the department had, during the foot and mouth outbreak destroyed animals which did not belong to the owner of the land. The department said that the farmer had disposed of his land at an undervalue to defeat his creditors. . .
CitedLand Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
Now set asideFeakins and Another v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 8-Jun-2006
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially . .
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 . .
See AlsoDepartment for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another ChD 26-Nov-2004
. .
See AlsoFeakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 March 2021; Ref: scu.187505

Kang, Regina (on The Application of) v Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS): CA 22 Feb 2010

Application for leave to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of action of an officer of CAFCASS in a case, and in particular the handling of a complaint against the officer.
Waller, Wilson LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 317
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.407763

Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

ECJ Public procurement Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedure under national law – Effective legal protection -Limitation periods – Point at which time starts running – Whether the applicant knew or ‘ought to have’ known of the breach of procurement law Requirement that proceedings be brought ‘promptly’.
C-406/08, [2009] EUECJ C-406/08 – O
Bailii
European
Cited by:
See AlsoUniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex ECJ 28-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 89/665/EEC – Procedures for review of the award of public contracts – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Date from which the period for bringing proceedings starts to run. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.380310

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others: QBD 24 May 1994

The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review.
Staughton LJ and Buckley J
Times 30-May-1994, Independent 24-May-1994
Criminal Justice Act 1988 17(1) 108 109 110 8111 112 113 114 115 116 117
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others CA 10-Nov-1994
The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into . .
At First InstanceRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union HL 5-Apr-1995
Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.87741

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others: CA 10 Nov 1994

The Home Secretary’s non-statutory scheme for the compensation for criminal injuries was unlawful pending implementation of the Act. It amounted to an abuse of power. He had power to delay implementing the new Act, with no duty to bring it into force, but could not in the interim introduce a scheme which differed radically from the scheme whilst the existing Act remained unrepealed.
Hobhouse LJ said that whether or not a provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon whether and when it comes into force: that is what coming into force means. When a statutory provision becomes part of the law of the United Kingdom depends upon what commencement provision Parliament has enacted.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Morritt LJ, Hobhouse LJ dissenting
Times 10-Nov-1994, Independent 10-Nov-1994, [1995] 2 WLR 1
Criminal Justice Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union and Others QBD 24-May-1994
The Home Secretary was under no duty to bring the new statutory CICB scheme into force on any particular date. He was free to continue to use his own. The court refused to order a judicial review. . .
CitedAttorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd HL 10-May-1920
A hotel had been requisitioned during the war for defence purposes. The owner claimed compensation. The AG argued that the liability to pay compensation had been displaced by statute giving the Crown the necessary powers.
Held: There is an . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union HL 5-Apr-1995
Parliament had passed the 1988 Act which provided for a new Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. Instead of implementing the Act, the Home Secretary drew up a non-statutory scheme for a tarriff based system by using prerogative powers. The . .
CitedRM v The Scottish Ministers SC 28-Nov-2012
The pursuer was held in a secure mental hospital. When moved to a highersecurity section, he challenged the move. He lost but then was unable to make an apeal as allowed iunder the 2003 Act because the Scottish Parliament had not created the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.87743

Blouet v Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates Court: Admn 12 Mar 2009

Application for judicial review of the decision of the district judge, sitting at Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates’ Court, not to order a fact-finding exercise rather than a trial.
[2009] EWHC 759 (Admin), [2009] MHLR 71
Bailii
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 11(1), Mental Health Act 1983 37(3)
England and Wales

Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.347435

Gentle and Clarke, Regina (on the Application Of) v Prime Minister and others: CA 12 Dec 2006

The claimants appealed refusal of a judicial review of the defendant’s decision to enter into the war in Iraq. The claimants were parents of troops who had died in the war. They said that the legal advice given to the government was incorrect.
Held: Human Rights law requires a proper investigation into deaths, but that requirement was satisfied by the coroners sysem, and did not require or allow a further investigation of the basis of the military action. Outside human rights law, the applications are unjusticiable: ‘The question whether the United Kingdom acted unlawfully in sending its armed forces to Iraq is not justiciable for one or both of two reasons, namely that it would involve a consideration of at least two international instruments, viz Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441, and that it would involve a detailed consideration of decisions of policy made in the areas of foreign affairs and defence which are the exclusive responsibility of the executive government.’
Sir Anthny Clarke MR, Sir Igor Judge President, Dyson LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1690, Times 01-Jan-2007
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 2.1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedButtes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
CitedJH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry HL 1989
An undisclosed principal will not be permitted to claim to be party to a contract if this is contrary to the terms of the contract itself. Thus the provision in the standard form B contract of the London Metal Exchange ‘this contract is made between . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedRegina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
CitedCouncil of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
CitedRegina v Foreign Secretary ex parte Everett CA 20-Oct-1988
A decision taken under the royal prerogative whether or not to issue a passport was subject to judicial review, although relief was refused on the facts of the particular case.
Taylor LJ summarised the effect of the GCHQ case as making clear . .
CitedCampaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others Admn 17-Dec-2002
CND sought an advisory declaration as to the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which had given Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and whether the resolution authorised states to take military action . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.246968

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Bentley: QBD 8 Jul 1993

Bentley had been convicted of the murder of a policeman. He was of low intelligence and he was captured. His co-accused still held a gun. He shouted out ‘Let him have it’ He was convicted, but had said that he had only intended for the gun to be surrendered. A posthumous pardon was sought.
Held: The royal prerogative of pardon is a flexible power. The court recommended to the Home Secretary that he re-examine the case of Bentley who had been hanged in 1953 with a view to exercising the prerogative of mercy. Home Secretary’s decision to pardon prisoner is susceptible to Judicial Review and the court could not make an order. The Home Secretary’s discretion on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a wide discretion.
‘The present Home Secretary is fully aware that there is nothing to prevent him recommending the grant of a free pardon even in a case in which he is not persuaded that the conviction was wrong . . He continues to think that a free pardon should be recommended only when the Home Secretary of the day is satisfied that the convicted person was not guilty of the offence charged.’
The court did not think the Home Secretary’s understanding as non-justiciable policy: ‘the substance of the applicant’s case was that the Home Secretary failed to recognise the fact that the prerogative of mercy is capable of being exercised in many different circumstances and over a wide range and therefore failed to consider the form of pardon which might be appropriate to meet the facts of the present case. Such a failure is, we think, reviewable.’
The Court concluded: ‘it is an error to regard the prerogative of mercy as a prerogative right which is only exercisable in cases which fall into specific categories. The prerogative is a flexible power and its exercise can and should be adapted to meet the circumstances of the particular case.’
Gazette 13-Oct-1993, Independent 08-Jul-1993, Times 08-Jul-1993, [1994] QB 349, [1993] 4 All ER 442, [1994] 2 WLR 101
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedShields, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 17-Dec-2008
The claimant had been convicted in Bulgaria of attempted murder. He had denied it, and somebody later confessed to the crime, but that confession had not been admitted. Having been transferred to England to complete his sentence, he now asked for a . .
CitedMiller, Regina (On the Application Of) v The Prime Minister QBD 11-Sep-2019
Prorogation request was non-justiciable
The claimant sought to challenge the prorogation of Parliament by the Queen at the request of the respondent.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.87833

Quintavalle and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Admn 9 Dec 2008

The claimants wished to challenge licensing decisions made by the respondent, and for a protective costs order.
Dobbs J
[2008] EWHC 3395 (Admin)
Bailii
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 16
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell HL 17-May-1990
The House sought to reconcile section 31 of the 1981 Act, with RSC Order 53 r4 as to the time within which judicial review proceedings must be brought.
Held: Whenever there was a failure to act promptly or within three months there was ‘undue . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Furneaux CA 1994
The court is entitled to refuse a request for judicial review on the sole ground of delay without any requirement of a causal link between the delay and any prejudice. Mere tardiness or incompetence of legal or other advisors is normally not a good . .
CitedRegina (Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre) v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority CA 31-Jan-2002
The applicant was undergoing fertility treatment. She wanted to have more than three eggs implanted, but permission for this was refused by the Authority. She sought to challenge that by way of judicial review.
Held: Judicial review was not . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 February 2021; Ref: scu.293967

Williamson, Re Judicial Review: CANI 5 Dec 2008

Kerr LCJ, Girvan LJ and Coghlin LJ
[2008] NICA 52
Bailii
Northern Ireland
Citing:
CitedRegina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.279913

Dumbuya, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Lewisham: Admn 16 Jul 2008

Walker J
[2008] EWHC 1852 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBoxall v Waltham Forest Borough Council 2001
The fact that the claimants were legally aided was immaterial when deciding what, if any, costs order to make between the parties in a case where they were successful and he declined to order that each side should bear its own costs. The court . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.272810

Dinedor Hill Action Association v County of Herefordshire District Council and Another: Admn 24 Jul 2008

Collins J
[2008] EWHC 1741 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2021; Ref: scu.271038

Regina v Birmingham City Council, ex parte Dredger: QBD 22 Jan 1993

The local authority, operators of the market, increased the rents payable by the tenants. The tenants sought a review of the decision.
Held: The act was that of a public authority and was subject to judicial review. The market stall-holders were entitled to be consulted before charges were increased.
Hutchinson J
[1994] 6 Admin L R 553, Times 28-Jan-1993, (1993) COD 340
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
England and Wales
Citing:
FollowedRegina v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Hook CA 1976
The applicant applied to have quashed the decision of the local council to exclude him from trading in the market and to revoke his right to have a stall.
Held: He succeeded on the grounds that the decision had been taken in breach of the . .

Cited by:
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.185803

Regina v Brentwood Borough Council Ex Parte Peck: Admn 18 Dec 1997

The claimant sought judicial review of the authority’s distribution to the media of a CCTV film of his attempted suicide.
Held: A Local Authority which was empowered to make video recording of street events had a power to distribute resulting film being unaware of objection.
Harrison J
Times 18-Dec-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 1041
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 111
England and Wales

Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.86197

Hardy and others v Pembrokeshire County Council and Another: CA 19 Jul 2006

The court considered the consequences of delay in applications for judicial review: ‘It is important that those parties, and indeed the public generally, should be able to proceed on the basis that the decision is valid and can be relied on, and that they can plan their lives and make personal and business decisions accordingly.’ The court rejected a submission that the requirement in CPR 54.5(1) for an application for judicial review to be made ‘promptly’ offended against the principle of ‘legal certainty’ in European law.
[2006] EWCA Civ 1008
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 54.591)
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243364

Nduka, Regina (on the Application of) v Her Honour Judge Riddel: Admn 21 Oct 2005

Attempt to avoid normal civil appeal process by use of judicial review – whether abuse of process. The underlying claim had been struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. Permission to appeal had been refused. Permission to bring judicial review of that decision had itself been refused on the basis that the CPR provided a comprehensive system of appeals, which could not be circumvented by judicial review. The claimant now appealed against that refusal.
Held: The County Court had been given extensive and draconian case management powers, and the decisions challenged fell welll within those case management powers. The appeal failed.
Wilkie J
[2005] EWHC 3115 (Admin)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 54
England and Wales

Updated: 26 January 2021; Ref: scu.238163

Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others: CA 23 Nov 2017

The claimant sought to bring judicial review against the IPT. The IPT argued that section 67(8) of the 2000 Act prevented such a claim.
[2017] EWCA Civ 1868, [2017] WLR(D) 775, [2018] 1 WLR 2572, [2018] HRLR 3, [2018] 3 All ER 95
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
At IPTLiberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .
Appeal fromPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Admn 2-Feb-2017
PI appealed from a ruling of the IPT that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise ‘the taking . . of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified’ was wide enough to encompass computer . .

Cited by:
At CAPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.599610

Barker, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Bromley: CA 23 Nov 2001

The court considered when time began to run for an application for judicial review where the question arose in the context of an outline planning permission granted subject to the approval of reserved matters.
The claimant challenged proposed development of the Crystal Palace site.
Brooke, Latham LJJ, Burton J
[2001] EWCA Civ 1766, [2002] Env LR 631, [2002] Env LR 25, [2001] 49 EGCS 117, [2001] NPC 170, [2002] 2 P and CR 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBarker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
See AlsoBarker, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Bromley and Another CA 8-Feb-2001
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 January 2021; Ref: scu.218495

Hassib, Regina (on the Application of) v East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust: CA 8 Oct 2002

Application for leave to appeal from refusal of permission to bring judicial review.
Held: ‘There is much in this which is strange and perhaps rather difficult to understand, but I have concluded without hesitation that Jackson J was entirely right to conclude that there were no possible grounds upon which an application for judicial review might succeed. This application for permission to appeal is refused.’
May LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1493
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 January 2021; Ref: scu.217680

Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another: CA 16 Oct 2003

Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the approach correctly, and the role of the court is to conduct a Wednesbury review of the decision of the council. That review was also correct. It was not a Gillespie case. The committee already had substantial information before it. A planning authority could not rely upon undertakings and conditions to secure compliance with the requirements for an assessment.
Lord Justice Laws Ord Justice Dyson And Lord Justice Carnwath
[2004] Env LR 391, [2003] EWCA Civ 1408, Times 31-Oct-2003
Bailii
Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 17 June 1995 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
CitedAannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case) ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their . .
CitedBerkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 29-Jun-2001
There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor . .
CitedRegina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy Admn 2001
The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of . .
CitedSmith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and others CA 5-Mar-2003
The court distilled four principles in deciding whether an environmental impact assessment was to be required. At the outline consent stage the planning authority must have sufficient details of any impact on the environment and of any mitigation to . .
CitedBellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it . .
CitedWorld Wildlife Fund and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others ECJ 12-Oct-1999
The court considered a project for converting Bolzano airport in Italy from military to civilian use. The national law did not require the project to be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The court asked whether the national law . .
CitedBown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport Admn 26-Mar-2003
The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately . .
CitedBurkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
Appeal fromJones, Regina (on the Application Of) v Mansfield District Council Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .

Cited by:
CitedYounger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
CitedChampion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 January 2021; Ref: scu.186820

Gjini, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Apr 2003

The appellant challenged the respondent’s decision to reduce the amount paid to her by way of asylum support benefit by the amount of child benefit she received.
Held: The applicant had failed to make proper disclosure to the court of the facts underlying her case. Since the case had begun, the Coucil had reviewed its policies and uprated the benefits payable. The evidence placed before the court as to the various benefits rates and calculations was weak. It was not possible to say that the method of calculation used by the Council was irrational or inaccurate, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Kay
[2003] EWCA Civ 558
Bailii
The Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 6
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Lloyd’s of London 1993
There is a duty to be performed by those who represent applicants for judicial review to make all appropriate enquiries and to disclose to the court all facts material to the application. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.180738

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
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.174790

Kharazmi v London Borough of Lambeth: Admn 11 Feb 2002

The claimant was in local authority housing. She was disabled and sought leave to apply for judicial review of the authority’s failure to include her in a priority category for rehousing.
Held: In view of the impending Court of Appeal decision in Wahid, her case may be arguable and she should be given leave to apply for judicial review. The fact that there had been delay whilst alternatives to litigation had been explored was sufficient to justify forgiving the delay in applying.
The Honourable Mr Justice Keith
[2002] EWHC 132 (Admin)
Bailii
National Assistance Act 1948 21, Housing Act 1996 167
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina (Wahid) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 23-Aug-2001
The applicant sought assistance under the National Assistance Act, in the form of housing. He suffered mental illness and was vulnerable. It was argued that the Act imposed a duty on the authority which was regardless of its budgetary limitations. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.168028

Langton, Allen, Regina (on the Application of) v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 17 Dec 2001

The claimants were farmers, who had been made subject to orders under the Act. They had accumulated maggot waste on their land. The second defendant accepted that the waste included material which would be high risk under the Directive. The defendant had entered the claimant’s land to execute works required under the notice, and the claimant argued this interfered with their property rights under the Convention. The maggot waste which had been supplied to him had included other animal wastes.
Held: Neither the Act for the Order allowed any provision for an appeal. Was judicial review a sufficient alternative remedy? Some of the significant decisions predated the Human Rights Act, and the actual procedure adopted allowed representations to be made, and for review if necessary. The Act was compliant.
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge
[2001] EWHC Admin 1047
Bailii
Animal Health Act 1981, Animal By-Products Order 1999, European Convention on Human Rights, Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27th November 1990.
Citing:
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedMcLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another CA 16-Oct-2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights.
Held: Review was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167368

Regina (on the Application of Sivasubramaniam) v Wandsworth County Court: Admn 13 Dec 2001

The applicant sought to appeal against a refusal of leave to appeal against an arbitration. There had been some delay for the applicant’s health.
Held: Leave to appeal having been refused there was no further right of appeal under the 1999 Act. A court will not entertain judicial review proceedings where an alternative remedy subsists.
Mr Justice Hooper
[2001] EWHC Admin 1079
Bailii, Bailii
Access to Justice Act 1999 54(1)
Cited by:
Appeal fromSivasubramaniam 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.
AppliedGregory and Gregory v Turner, Turner; Regina (Morris) v North Somerset Council CA 19-Feb-2003
The parties were involved in a boundary dispute. One granted an enduring power of attorney, and sought to appear as a litigant in person through the power.
Held: The right of a litigant in person to represent himself was a personal right, and . .
AppliedRegina on the Application of M v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal CA 16-Dec-2004
The appellants sought judicial review of the refusal of asylum. They sought leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, but that had been refused. They then sought a statutory review by a judge of the Administrative division. That review . .
AppliedCart, Regina (on The Application of) v The Upper Tribunal and Others CA 23-Jul-2010
The claimant had sought and been refused judicial review of a decision of the SIAC Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunals were designated as courts of superior record, and the court at first instance had said that SIACs specialist procedures and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.167366

Rajkumar v Lalla, Wooding, Mohammed, Walters, Seemungal, (Public Service Commission) and Baptiste (The Commissioner of Prisons): PC 29 Nov 2001

(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant complained that he had not been treated fairly as a civil servant in having been passed over for promotion. He sought to appeal a finding on judicial review.
Held: While some proceedings for judicial review require more elaborate procedures, it is in no sense an optional procedure to be contrasted with some more formal procedure, and no leave is required from a final order in such proceedings. The appellant had been an acting Prison Officer grade II for ten years. The decision of the judge was in error, but the committee could not order his appointment. The case was remitted for the Civil Service Commission for their active consideration, and in the absence of a positive decision, full reasons were to be given.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Sir Andrew Leggatt
Appeal No 1 of 2001, [2001] UKPC 53
PC, PC, PC, Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedJones v Solomon 1986
(Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Judicial review proceedings do not involve the full trial process, and are therefore summary. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166941

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Levy: Admn 16 Jun 1997

The court was asked whether a defendant can be convicted of driving while disqualified notwithstanding that, subsequent to the act of driving in question, he has successfully appealed against the conviction for which he had earlier been disqualified? The magistrates refused to state a case, saying that the request was frivolous.
Held:
As to the refusal to state a case, if there is a real point to be argued, then a case should have been stated. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘On 13th November 1996 the Magistrate refused to state a case, explaining fully and helpfully the reasons why he regarded the applicant’s argument as unsustainable and why in the result he concluded that the application was frivolous within the meaning of section 111(5) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Invited by the applicant’s solicitors on 4th December 1996 to reconsider his decision, the Magistrate on 11th December refused, pointing out that, in any event, ‘the case has in effect been stated in the body of that letter’ (i.e. his earlier letter of 13th November). The same day, 11th December 1996, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking an order for mandamus to require the respondent Magistrate to state a case. Leave to move was granted . . on 26th January 1997, and it was in that form that the matter first came before us today. As, however, I have had occasion to remark in a number of other cases, such a course, although conventional and technically correct, is in fact, in circumstances such as arise here, absurdly inconvenient. If it succeeds, all it produces is an order for a case to be stated which in reality advances the resolution of the substantive issue not one jot. Far better surely, in a case like this where the facts are not in dispute and where in any event the Magistrate has, as he observed, already in effect stated the case, that the true issue should be placed directly before this court (as so easily it can be) by way of a straightforward judicial review challenge to the legality of the conviction . . With these considerations in mind, we gave leave at the outset of the hearing to amend the proceedings to include a separate judicial review challenge going directly to the conviction on 23rd October 1996 so as to raise squarely for present decision – rather than merely for the expression of a prima facie view upon – the critical issue arising. I should just note that we took this course with the agreement not merely of the applicant, but also of the Crown Prosecution Service who fortunately were represented before us.’
Simon Brown LJ, Garland J
[1997] EWHC Admin 559
Bailii
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSunworld Limited v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 2000
The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 December 2020; Ref: scu.137504

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.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf M.R. Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Times 26-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 32, [2000] 3 All ER 226, [2000] 1 WLR 1169
House of Lords, Bailii
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, Firearms Act 1968 5
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 . .
[1998] EWCA Civ 762
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 . .
Times 20-Aug-97, [1997] 4 All ER 747, [1997] EWCA Civ 2257, [1998] 1 WLR 840
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 . .
[1983] 2 AC 237, [1982] 3 WLR 1096, [1982] 3 All ER 1124, [1983] UKHL 1
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. . .
[1983] 2 AC 286, [1982] 3 WLR 1121, [1982] 3 All ER 1135, [1981] UKHL 10
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. . .
Independent 16-Feb-95, Times 10-Feb-95, [1996] 1 WLR 48, [1995] UKHL 12, [1996] 1 All ER 575, [1995] CLC 266, [1998] Masons CLR Rep 39
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 . .
Gazette 06-May-92, [1992] 1 AC 624, [1992] 7 CL 474, [1992] 2 WLR 239, [1991] UKHL 8, [1992] IRLR 233, (1992) 4 Admin LR 649, [1992] 3 Med LR 177, [1992] 1 All ER 705

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 . .
[2004] EWHC 1795 (Ch), Times 27-Aug-04, [2004] 1 WLR 2893, [2005] 1 All ER 369, [2004] 3 CMLR 31, [2004] Eu LR 1003
Appealed toSteed 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 . .
[1998] EWCA Civ 762

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 December 2020; 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.
Times 01-Aug-1996
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 . .
Times 09-Aug-96, [1996] EWCA Civ 569, [1996] EWCA Civ 570

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 December 2020; 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.’
Slade LJ, Dillon LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 731, [1990] Ch 98, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 120
RSC (NI) Order Rulle 11
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 . .
[2007] 1 AC 650, [2006] UKHL 53, Times 15-Dec-06, [2007] 2 WLR 1, [2007] 2 All ER 273
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 . .
[2008] EWCA Civ 59, Times 10-Mar-08, [2008] NPC 16, [2008] BPIR 314, [2008] 1 WLR 1099, [2008] CP Rep 22
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 . .
(1990) Ch 98
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 . .
[2008] EWCA Civ 59, Times 10-Mar-08, [2008] NPC 16, [2008] BPIR 314, [2008] 1 WLR 1099, [2008] CP Rep 22

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; 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.’
Jack Heatson QC
Times 20-Oct-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390
Bailii
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 . .
Times 18-Nov-97, [1997] EWHC Admin 780, [1998] ELR 402
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 . .
[1953] 1 WLR 516
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 . .
[1989] 1 AC 574, [1988] 3 WLR 1386
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 . .
Times 29-Apr-97, [1997] ELR 311
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 . .
[1997] EWHC Admin 651
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 . .
[1949] 2 KB 218
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 . .
[1994] ELR 273

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; 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.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett
Times 08-Nov-2000, Gazette 30-Nov-2000, [2000] UKHL 56, [2000] 1 WLR 2222, [2000] 1 All ER 27
House of Lords, Bailii
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’. . .
[1982] 1 WLR 1375
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 . .
Times 26-Apr-99, [1999] 1 WLR 1027
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 . .
[1891] AC 210, [1891] UKHL 4
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 . .
Times 18-May-98, [2000] 1 AC 1, [1998] UKPC 22
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 . .
[1892] 1 QB 609
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.
[1983] 1 WLR 2

Cited by:
See AlsoSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Eastaway CA 6-Apr-2001
. .
[2001] EWCA Civ 763, [2003] 2 BCLC 263
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
. .
[2001] EWCA Civ 1595, [2003] 2 BCLC 263
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 . .
74976/01, Times 09-Aug-04, [2004] ECHR 364
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 . .
Gazette 21-Jun-01, Times 05-Jul-01, [2001] 1 BCLC 653
See AlsoEastaway v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and similar ChD 2-Mar-2006
. .
[2006] EWHC 299 (Ch)
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 . .
[2007] EWCA Civ 425
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 . .
[2008] EWHC 2178 (QB), Times 07-Oct-08, [2008] 3 CMLR 45, [2009] Eu LR 174, [2009] JPL 619
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 . .
[2011] UKSC 2, UKSC 2009/0175, [2011] ICR 224, [2011] 2 All ER 1, [2011] 2 AC 146, [2011] 2 WLR 103

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; 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.
Otton LJ, Steel J
Times 08-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 181
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 . .
(1831) 2 B and Ad 663, [1831] EngR 686, (1831) 109 ER 1290
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 . .
[1971] P 33, [1970] 3 WLR 472, CAT 679/1991
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 . .
[1999] 2 FLR 59, CAT 679/1991
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 . .
[1999] 2 FLR 59, CAT 679/1991
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 . .
Times 06-May-97, [1997] EWCA Civ 1436, [1997] 2 FLR 423
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 . .
[1991] 1 AC 696, [1991] 2 WLR 588, [1991] UKHL 4, [1991] 1 All ER 720

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, . .
Times 18-Aug-99, Gazette 17-Dec-99, [1999] EWCA Civ 2004, [1999] 1 WLR 1807, [1999] 2 FLR 1126

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; 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.’
Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
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
Bailii
Telecommunications Act 1984 7
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. . .
Independent 19-Aug-94, Times 03-Aug-94, Gazette 07-Oct-94
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 . .
[1983] 2 AC 237, [1982] 3 WLR 1096, [1982] 3 All ER 1124, [1983] UKHL 1

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. . .
Independent 19-Aug-94, Times 03-Aug-94, Gazette 07-Oct-94
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 . .
Times 03-Apr-98, [1998] UKHL 13, [1999] 2 AC 143, [1998] 2 All ER 203, [1998] 2 WLR 639
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 . .
Times 26-May-00, Gazette 08-Jun-00, [2000] UKHL 32, [2000] 3 All ER 226, [2000] 1 WLR 1169
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 . .
[2010] EWCA Civ 345

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.83655

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.
Times 20-Feb-2001

Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.77746

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Berriman: QBD 2008

The Court permitted parallel case stated and Judicial Review proceedings to take place before it.
[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 . .
[2013] EWHC 54 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 23, [2013] 3 WLR 422, [2013] 2 EGLR 138, [2014] 1 QB 62, [2013] RA 75

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; 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.
Donovan J, Lord Parker CJ
[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 . .
[2012] UKSC 44, UKSC 2012/0098, [2013] 1 CMLR 28, [2013] PTSR 51, [2013] JPL 323, 2012 SLT 1211, [2013] Env LR 16, 2012 GWD 34-689

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 December 2020; Ref: scu.470544

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

Updated: 15 December 2020; Ref: scu.240156

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.
Independent 22-Jun-1993, Times 25-Jun-1993
Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Updated: 14 December 2020; 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’.’
Lord Denning MR
[1976] QB 540
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – HM 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 . .
    [2013] EWCA Civ 1289, [2013] BVC 526, [2013] STI 3396, [2014] STC 470
  • Cited – Revenue 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 . .
    [2015 UKSC 48, [2015] WLR(D) 299, [2015] STC 1921, [2015] 4 All ER 77, [2015] LLR 665, [2015] BVC 31, [2015] 1 WLR 3472, [2015] STI 2395, UKSC 2013/0257

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 December 2020; Ref: scu.589259

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

Ouseley J
[2010] EWHC 2919 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; Ref: scu.428417

Morgan v Lloyd: 1981

Lord Denning MR
[1981] LLR 423
England and Wales
Cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 December 2020; 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.’
Dillon LJ, McCowan LJ
[1991] CAT 1991/761.
England and Wales
Cited by:

  • Cited – Tweed 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 . .
    [2007] 1 AC 650, [2006] UKHL 53, Times 15-Dec-06, [2007] 2 WLR 1, [2007] 2 All ER 273
  • Cited – 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 . .
    [1994] EWHC Admin 1, [1995] 1 WLR 386, [1995] 1 All ER 611, [1995] COD 211

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.247416

Regina v Chief Constable, ex parte McKenna: 1992

A detained person challenged the police handling of his case by way of judicial review.
References: [1992] NI 116
Jurisdiction: Northern Ireland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cullen 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 . .
    (, Gazette 18-Sep-03, , [2003] UKHL 39, [2003] 1 WLR 1763, [2004] 2 All ER 237, [2003] 1 WLR 1763, [2003] NI 375)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 19-Dec-2002
Judges: Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Simon Brown
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina 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 . .
    (, [1997] EWHC Admin 119, [1998] QB 110, [1997] 2 Cr App R 340, [1997] 2 WLR 854)
  • Appealed from – 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 . .
    (Times 16-May-02)
  • Cited – Lloyd 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.
    ([1987] AC 625, , [1987] UKHL 5, [1987] 1 All ER 1118, [1987] 2 WLR 821)
  • Cited – Calvin 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 . .
    (, [1979] UKPC 1, [1979] 2 All ER 440, [1980] AC 574, , [1979] 2 WLR 755)

This case is cited by:

  • Appealed To – 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 . .
    (Times 16-May-02)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; 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.
References: Times 16-May-2002
Judges: Justice Mitchell
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; 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.
References: [1997] EWHC Admin 526, [1998] 2 PLR 1, [1997] COD 463
Judges: Laws J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Finn-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 . .
    (, [2008] EWCA Civ 1067, [2008] NPC 108, [2008] 41 EG 157, [2009] JPL 493, [2009] 1 WLR 1687, [2009] Env LR 17)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; 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.
References: Independent 23-Feb-1995, [1995] CLC 392
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.86494