Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] 1 All ER 694 is the leading case in the area of improper purpose. The Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation because [...]. The House of Lords held that this decision was unlawful because he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose.
Answer
he believed he could be embarrassed by an unfavourable report, despite the fact that he had a power to direct such an investigation

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] 1 All ER 694 is the leading case in the area of improper purpose. The Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation because [...]. The House of Lords held that this decision was unlawful because he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose.
Answer
?

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] 1 All ER 694 is the leading case in the area of improper purpose. The Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation because [...]. The House of Lords held that this decision was unlawful because he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose.
Answer
he believed he could be embarrassed by an unfavourable report, despite the fact that he had a power to direct such an investigation
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] 1 All ER 694 is the leading case in the area of improper purpose. The Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation because he believed he could be embarrassed by an unfavourable report, despite the fact that he had a power to direct such an investigation. The House of Lords held that this decision was unlawful because he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.