Edited, memorised or added to reading list

on 23-Jul-2016 (Sat)

Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Click here to log in or create user.

Flashcard 1361651567884

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A defendant’s silence could be taken into account where there was other strong evidence against him
Answer
Murray (John) v UK

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Murray, the ECtHR acknowledged the importance of the right to silence to a fair criminal process as protected through the ECHR, art 6, but it also accepted that the right is not absolute. A defendant’s silence could be taken into account where there was other strong evidence against him, as there was against Murray. Where the court did find for Murray was in its conclusion that the ECHR, art 6(1) read with art 6(3)(c) had been violated because of the denial of access

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







#law #negligence #pel #tort
In Spring v Guardian Assurance plc & Others [1994] 3 All ER 129 the defendants gave a very disparaging job reference about the plaintiff. The plaintiff was unable to gain other employment in the life assurance industry as a result of the reference and, therefore, sued the defendant for negligence. Although there was no doubt that a referee owed a duty of care to the person requesting a reference (Hedley Byrne), it was questionable whether a duty of care was also owed to the subject of the reference. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s only remedy would be in defamation, not negligence. However, the House of Lords (Lord Keith dissenting) held that there could be a duty of care. Lord Goff based his reasoning on the concept of assumption of responsibility. He felt that by giving a reference, the company assumed a responsibility to the plaintiff to give a careful reference. It is very difficult to get a job without a reference and a defamation action would not always provide a satisfactory remedy.
statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on reading queue position [%]
started reading on finished reading on

pdf

cannot see any pdfs




Flashcard 1369062116620

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
the House of Lords nevertheless adopted and approved the McLoughlin criteria in the decision of [case] which is now the leading case in this area with regards to secondary victims. The criteria to be taken into account when considering whether a duty of care is owed include:
1. whether the claimant has suffered a recognised psychiatric illness;
2. foreseeability of the psychiatric damage;
3. the relationship between the claimant and ‘the victim’;
4. proximity in time and space; and
5. manner of perception.
In addition, as an overarching consideration, the court will always take into account whether it is fair, just and reasonable for a duty to be imposed.
Answer
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the House of Lords nevertheless adopted and approved the McLoughlin criteria in the decision of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] 4 All ER 907 which is now the leading case in this area with regards to secondary victims. The criteria to be taken into account when considering whether a duty of care is owed include: 1. wheth

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1369099078924

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
In Alcock this situation actually arose as some of the claimants witnessed the disaster on live TV, while others saw news reports throughout the day. The House of Lords held that [...]. Even though the defendants knew of the broadcast, TV companies have guidelines that prevent the transmission of the suffering and death of identifiable individuals. This was sufficient to ensure that the defendants would not be liable.
Answer
there was no duty of care owed by the defendants to the viewers of TV

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Alcock this situation actually arose as some of the claimants witnessed the disaster on live TV, while others saw news reports throughout the day. The House of Lords held that there was no duty of care owed by the defendants to the viewers of TV. Even though the defendants knew of the broadcast, TV companies have guidelines that prevent the transmission of the suffering and death of identifiable individuals. This was sufficie

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370750323980

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A 'quashing order' (formerly certiorari), [...];
Answer
quashing the impugned decision

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A ' quashing order ' (formerly certiorari), quashing the impugned decision;

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370752945420

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A 'prohibitory order' (formerly prohibition), [...]
Answer
preventing a public body from acting or continuing to act ultra vires or unreasonably or unfairly;

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A ' prohibitory order ' (formerly prohibition), preventing a public body from acting or continuing to act ultra vires or unreasonably or unfairly;

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370755566860

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A 'mandatory order' (formerly mandamus), [...]
Answer
compelling the public body to perform a public law duty imposed by law

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A ' mandatory order ' (formerly mandamus), compelling the public body to perform a public law duty imposed by law

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370759761164

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A declaration, which is [...]
Answer
a statement of the legal position. This does not question the exercise of the power

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A declaration , which is a statement of the legal position. This does not question the exercise of the power

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370762382604

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
An injunction, [...]
Answer
ordering a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a specific act

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An injunction , ordering a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a specific act

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370763955468

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] Env LR 76. Here the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had 2,500 supporters in Cumbria. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would have required an application by an employee of BNFL, or someone living very close to Sellafield, who might well not have had the same degree of expertise as Greenpeace, resulting in a far less well-informed challenge. Standing [...].
Answer
was therefore accepted

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rt. It would have required an application by an employee of BNFL, or someone living very close to Sellafield, who might well not have had the same degree of expertise as Greenpeace, resulting in a far less well-informed challenge. Standing <span>was therefore accepted.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370765528332

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of [...], even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one.
Answer
allowing public law decisions to be challenged

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370767101196

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if [...].
Answer
the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370768674060

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to [...] of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one.
Answer
the rule of law

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370770246924

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386
Answer
A former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maastricht Treaty') because of his 'sincere concern for constitutional issues'.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
cted in the approach to individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions, not so much because their own interests are directly impacted but because of their concern, as a citizen, about a particular public issue. For example, in <span>R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maast

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370772606220

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maastricht Treaty') because of his 'sincere concern for constitutional issues'.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
cted in the approach to individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions, not so much because their own interests are directly impacted but because of their concern, as a citizen, about a particular public issue. For example, in <span>R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maast

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370774965516

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Lord Reed commented on the balance of considerations to be taken into account by the court as follows:

'In many contexts it will be necessary for a person to demonstrate some particular interest in order to demonstrate that [...]. Not every member of the public can complain of every potential breach of duty by a public body. But there may also be cases in which any individual, simply as a citizen, will have sufficient interest to bring a public authority's violation of the law to the attention of the court, without having to demonstrate any greater impact upon himself than upon other members of the public. The rule of law would not be maintained if, because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no one was able to bring proceedings to challenge it.'

Answer
he is not a mere busybody

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lord Reed commented on the balance of considerations to be taken into account by the court as follows: 'In many contexts it will be necessary for a person to demonstrate some particular interest in order to demonstrate that he is not a mere busybody. Not every member of the public can complain of every potential breach of duty by a public body. But there may also be cases in which any individual, simply as a citizen, will have suff

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370776538380

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Lord Reed commented on the balance of considerations to be taken into account by the court as follows:

'In many contexts it will be necessary for a person to demonstrate some particular interest in order to demonstrate that he is not a mere busybody. Not every member of the public can complain of every potential breach of duty by a public body. But there may also be cases in which any individual, simply as a citizen, will have sufficient interest to bring a public authority's violation of the law to the attention of the court, without having to demonstrate any greater impact upon himself than upon other members of the public. The rule of law would not be maintained if, [...]'

Answer
because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no one was able to bring proceedings to challenge it.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
icient interest to bring a public authority's violation of the law to the attention of the court, without having to demonstrate any greater impact upon himself than upon other members of the public. The rule of law would not be maintained if, <span>because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no one was able to bring proceedings to challenge it.' <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370816122124

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The classic definition of illegality was given by [...] in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 where he said

‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.’

Answer
Lord Diplock

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The classic definition of illegality was given by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 where he said ‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the de

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370817694988

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The classic definition of illegality was given by Lord Diplock in [case] where he said

‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.’

Answer
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The classic definition of illegality was given by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 where he said ‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370820054284

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The classic definition of illegality was given by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 where he said

‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that [...]

Answer
the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The classic definition of illegality was given by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 where he said ‘By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that <span>the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370822675724

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The first two types of reviewable factual errors are [...], and facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists). The third type is the most interesting – mistake of facts.
Answer
precedent (jurisdictional) facts

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The first two types of reviewable factual errors are precedent (jurisdictional) facts, and facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists). The third type is the most interesting – mistake of fac

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370824248588

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The first two types of reviewable factual errors are precedent (jurisdictional) facts, and [...]. The third type is the most interesting – mistake of facts.
Answer
facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists)

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The first two types of reviewable factual errors are precedent (jurisdictional) facts, and facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists). The third type is the most interesting – mistake of facts.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370825821452

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The first two types of reviewable factual errors are precedent (jurisdictional) facts, and facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists). The third type is the most interesting – [...].
Answer
mistake of facts

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
types of reviewable factual errors are precedent (jurisdictional) facts, and facts with no supporting evidence (where one is entitled to conclude no evidence had been adduced, because none exists). The third type is the most interesting – <span>mistake of facts.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370829753612

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
Answer
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370832112908

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.
Answer
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370834472204

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of [...]. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.
Answer
factual errors made by the decision maker

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
dy>E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370836045068

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044
Facts: The case was brought by foreign nationals seeking asylum. Their claims were rejected and they appealed to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on the basis of factual errors made by the decision maker. The Tribunal decided it could not hear their claims in relation to mistakes of fact. This was probably correct under the law governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered [...].
Answer
in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
as asked to consider whether or not the mistake of fact that the appellants wished to challenge could be raised as a free- standing claim, entirely separate from the statutory requirements which would preclude it. The Court of Appeal answered <span>in the affirmative and indicated this would also apply to mainstream judicial review cases.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370839452940

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
When trying to establish what are, and what are not relevant considerations for a decision maker to take into account, regard must first be had to any relevant statute itself. In [case] Megaw J said:

‘…[I]f it be shown that an authority exercising a power has taken into account as a relevant factor something that which it should not properly have taken into account in deciding whether or not to exercise the power, then the exercise of the power, normally at least, is bad. Similarly, if the authority fails to take into account as a relevant factor something which is relevant, and which it ought to have taken into account, the exercise of the power is normally bad’.

Answer
Hanks v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 QB 999

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
When trying to establish what are, and what are not relevant considerations for a decision maker to take into account, regard must first be had to any relevant statute itself. In Hanks v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 QB 999 Megaw J said: ‘…[I]f it be shown that an authority exercising a power has taken into account as a relevant factor something that which it should not properly have taken into

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370841812236

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
When trying to establish what are, and what are not relevant considerations for a decision maker to take into account, regard must first be had to [...]. In Hanks v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 QB 999 Megaw J said:

‘…[I]f it be shown that an authority exercising a power has taken into account as a relevant factor something that which it should not properly have taken into account in deciding whether or not to exercise the power, then the exercise of the power, normally at least, is bad. Similarly, if the authority fails to take into account as a relevant factor something which is relevant, and which it ought to have taken into account, the exercise of the power is normally bad’.

Answer
any relevant statute itself

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
When trying to establish what are, and what are not relevant considerations for a decision maker to take into account, regard must first be had to any relevant statute itself. In Hanks v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963] 1 QB 999 Megaw J said: ‘…[I]f it be shown that an authority exercising a power has taken into account as a relev

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370845744396

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
While it is clear that a decision will be flawed where an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, or a relevant factor is not taken into consideration, there is a third category where [...]. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation in which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process’.
Answer
the decision-maker has a discretion

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
While it is clear that a decision will be flawed where an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, or a relevant factor is not taken into consideration, there is a third category where the decision-maker has a discretion. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and d

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370847317260

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
While it is clear that a decision will be flawed where an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, or a relevant factor is not taken into consideration, there is a third category where the decision-maker has a discretion. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in [case] as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation in which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process’.
Answer
R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ill be flawed where an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, or a relevant factor is not taken into consideration, there is a third category where the decision-maker has a discretion. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in <span>R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation in which the decision-

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370849676556

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
While it is clear that a decision will be flawed where an irrelevant factor is taken into consideration, or a relevant factor is not taken into consideration, there is a third category where the decision-maker has a discretion. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if [...]. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation in which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process’.
Answer
in his judgment and discretion he thinks right to do so

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ideration, there is a third category where the decision-maker has a discretion. This category was described by Simon-Brown LJ, in R v Somerset CC ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 as an area in which '...the decision-maker may have regard if <span>in his judgment and discretion he thinks right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation in which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process’.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370853608716

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Somerset County Council ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037
Answer
Facts: Under the Local Government Act 1972 s 120(1)(b), local councils were tasked with managing their land for “the benefit, improvement or development of their area.” Somerset County Council bought a strip of land and banned stag hunting on it, which effectively prevented all hunts. It became apparent that their main reason for banning the hunts was ethical opposition to the practice. The question was whether or not this fell within the terms of their powers under the legislation, or whether morality was an irrelevant factor.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Somerset County Council ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 Facts: Under the Local Government Act 1972 s 120(1)(b), local councils were tasked with managing their land for “the benefit, improvement or development of their area.” Somerset County C

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370855968012

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: Under the Local Government Act 1972 s 120(1)(b), local councils were tasked with managing their land for “the benefit, improvement or development of their area.” Somerset County Council bought a strip of land and banned stag hunting on it, which effectively prevented all hunts. It became apparent that their main reason for banning the hunts was ethical opposition to the practice. The question was whether or not this fell within the terms of their powers under the legislation, or whether morality was an irrelevant factor.
Answer
R v Somerset County Council ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Somerset County Council ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037 Facts: Under the Local Government Act 1972 s 120(1)(b), local councils were tasked with managing their land for “the benefit, improvement or development of their area.” Somerset County C

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370860162316

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that the person seized with discretion should be the person to exercise it.
Answer
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that the person seized with discretion should be the person to exercise it. This was confirmed in the following case. Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231 Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370864880908

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231
Answer
Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’s application for planning permission to develop land for use as a quarry, after hearing objections from the Minister of Agriculture. The decision was challenged on the grounds that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had effectively delegated the decision to the Minister of Agriculture.
The ruling in Lavender prohibits delegation to another agency. However, executive decision makers often find that the number of decisions they have to make outstrips their capacity to make them: it would be physically impossible (and scarcely good use of their time) for the Home Secretary or one of her deputy ministers to read everyone’s passport application.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231 Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’s application for planning permission to develop land for use as a quarry, after hearing objections from the Minister

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370867240204

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’s application for planning permission to develop land for use as a quarry, after hearing objections from the Minister of Agriculture. The decision was challenged on the grounds that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had effectively delegated the decision to the Minister of Agriculture.
The ruling in Lavender prohibits delegation to another agency. However, executive decision makers often find that the number of decisions they have to make outstrips their capacity to make them: it would be physically impossible (and scarcely good use of their time) for the Home Secretary or one of her deputy ministers to read everyone’s passport application.
Answer
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231 Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’s application for planning permission to develop land for use as a quarry, after hearing objections from the Minister

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370869599500

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231
Facts: the Minister of Housing and Local Government refused Lavender’s application for planning permission to develop land for use as a quarry, after hearing objections from the Minister of Agriculture. The decision was challenged on the grounds that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had effectively delegated the decision to the Minister of Agriculture.
The ruling in Lavender [...]. However, executive decision makers often find that the number of decisions they have to make outstrips their capacity to make them: it would be physically impossible (and scarcely good use of their time) for the Home Secretary or one of her deputy ministers to read everyone’s passport application.
Answer
prohibits delegation to another agency

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
aring objections from the Minister of Agriculture. The decision was challenged on the grounds that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had effectively delegated the decision to the Minister of Agriculture. The ruling in Lavender <span>prohibits delegation to another agency. However, executive decision makers often find that the number of decisions they have to make outstrips their capacity to make them: it would be physically impossible (and scarcely good

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370872220940

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
an important exception to the “no delegation” rule can be found in the case of [case].
Answer
Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
an important exception to the “no delegation” rule can be found in the case of Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370875628812

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
[case] appears to establish that delegation within a department is acceptable (as compared to between departments as in Lavender).
Answer
Carltona

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Carltona appears to establish that delegation within a department is acceptable (as compared to between departments as in Lavender).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370877988108

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Carltona appears to establish that [...].
Answer
delegation within a department is acceptable (as compared to between departments as in Lavender)

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Carltona appears to establish that delegation within a department is acceptable (as compared to between departments as in Lavender).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370880609548

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In the case of [case], which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157, which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said:

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370882968844

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157, which dealt with [...], the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.
Answer
whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157, which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to rele

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370884541708

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1993] AC 157, which dealt with whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could delegate the function of setting a tariff period for life sentence prisoners, the Court of Appeal said: ‘there is no express or implied requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, [...].
Answer
unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 that a decision fixing the tariff period, or for that matter a decision to release a prisoner on licence, must be taken by the Secretary of State personally’ (per Staughton LJ). This seems to suggest that, <span>unless delegation is excluded specifically or by necessary implication, no power is non- delegable within a department.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370887949580

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Answer

Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in those regions had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board, which had fixed the price for milk several years before, by reference to transport costs. The south-eastern region wished to amend the scheme, but could not get a majority on the Board so made a complaint to the Minister. The Minister refused to refer the matter to a committee of investigation, and an application for mandamus (the old name for a mandatory order) was made to the court. The House of Lords concluded that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370890308876

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question

Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in those regions had to sell their milk to the Milk Marketing Board, which had fixed the price for milk several years before, by reference to transport costs. The south-eastern region wished to amend the scheme, but could not get a majority on the Board so made a complaint to the Minister. The Minister refused to refer the matter to a committee of investigation, and an application for mandamus (the old name for a mandatory order) was made to the court. The House of Lords concluded that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose.
Answer
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 Facts: The Minister was given discretion to set up a committee of investigation on a complaint regarding the milk marketing scheme. The scheme created nine regions and milk producers in

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370893716748

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The classic exposition of improper purpose was given in the case of [case].
Answer
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The classic exposition of improper purpose was given in the case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370896076044

Tags
#cases #illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The classic exposition of [...] was given in the case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.
Answer
improper purpose

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The classic exposition of improper purpose was given in the case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370914950412

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The term 'ultra vires' is often used as a generic phrase relating to any decision which is tainted by illegality. However, it was traditionally used in a narrower sense, referring to a decision that [...].
Answer
goes beyond the boundaries of legal power given to the body concerned

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The term 'ultra vires' is often used as a generic phrase relating to any decision which is tainted by illegality. However, it was traditionally used in a narrower sense, referring to a decision that goes beyond the boundaries of legal power given to the body concerned.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370916523276

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The term 'ultra vires' is often used as a generic phrase relating to any decision which is tainted by illegality. However, it was traditionally used in a narrower sense, referring to a decision that goes beyond the boundaries of legal power given to the body concerned. A hypothetical example would be a police officer arresting a person for parking on a yellow line, when there is simply no power of arrest in such a situation. The arrest would therefore be declared ultra vires. Likewise, if [...], this too would be declared ultra vires.
Answer
the Secretary of Health were to pass regulations governing the deployment of the armed forces

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
body concerned. A hypothetical example would be a police officer arresting a person for parking on a yellow line, when there is simply no power of arrest in such a situation. The arrest would therefore be declared ultra vires. Likewise, if <span>the Secretary of Health were to pass regulations governing the deployment of the armed forces, this too would be declared ultra vires.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370919669004

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
An old case, [case], provides a clear example of the doctrine at work. In this case, a local authority had the power to provide washhouses for residents to wash their clothes in. This was held not to empower it to set up a laundry service in which residents paid employees of the authority to wash their clothes for them.
Answer
Attorney General v Fulham Corporation [1921] Ch 440

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An old case, Attorney General v Fulham Corporation [1921] Ch 440, provides a clear example of the doctrine at work. In this case, a local authority had the power to provide washhouses for residents to wash their clothes in. This was held not to emp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370923076876

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
However, a public body will not have acted unlawfully if did something that was reasonably incidental to or consequent upon a power that it did have. For example, the House of Lords held in [case] that a power to build public lavatories could also be used to build a subway under a road that was necessary in order to access those lavatories.
Answer
Westminster Corporation v London & North West Railway [1905] AC 426

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, a public body will not have acted unlawfully if did something that was reasonably incidental to or consequent upon a power that it did have. For example, the House of Lords held in Westminster Corporation v London & North West Railway [1905] AC 426 that a power to build public lavatories could also be used to build a subway under a road that was necessary in order to access those lavatories.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370925436172

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
A public body will not have acted unlawfully if did something that was reasonably incidental to or consequent upon a power that it did have.
Answer
Westminster Corporation v London & North West Railway [1905] AC 426

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, a public body will not have acted unlawfully if did something that was reasonably incidental to or consequent upon a power that it did have. For example, the House of Lords held in Westminster Corporation v London & North West Railway [1905] AC 426 that a power to build public lavatories could also be used to build a subway under a road that was necessary in order to access those lavatories.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370928844044

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The 1990s saw the emergence of a principle of legality. This took the form of a principle of statutory interpretation which [...].
Answer
presumed that Parliament did not intend to authorise the infringement of fundamental or 'constitutional' rights and cardinal principles of the rule of law without specific statutory authorisation

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The 1990s saw the emergence of a principle of legality. This took the form of a principle of statutory interpretation which presumed that Parliament did not intend to authorise the infringement of fundamental or 'constitutional' rights and cardinal principles of the rule of law without specific statutory authorisation.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370932251916

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198
Answer
Concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370934611212

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370936970508

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by [...]. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
express words in the statute or by necessary implication

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
spondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by <span>express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be dis

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370938543372

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where [...]. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where <span>the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech ac

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370940116236

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2), [1994] QB 198 which concerned prison rules permitting the interception of letters to and from a prisoner, including correspondence with his lawyers. The court held that this interfered with a constitutional right to the free flow of communications between a solicitor and a client about contemplated legal proceedings. The interference could only be authorised by express words in the statute or by necessary implication. That necessary implication could only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to [...]. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But the prison rules, made under the authority of that statute, were too wide in permitting all letters to and from a prisoner to be read. The authorised intrusion had to be the minimum necessary to ensure that the correspondence was in truth bona fide legal correspondence.
Answer
any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d only arise where the purpose of Parliament could not be achieved without the right being infringed, or the function of the public body could not be discharged without it. Even if this was satisfied, the right could still not be infringed to <span>any greater extent than was necessary in order to achieve the statutory objective. The Court of Appeal in Leech accepted that, by necessary implication, the Prison Act 1952 authorised some screening of correspondence passing between a prisoner and a solicitor. But th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370942737676

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779
Answer
W wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee, but the local court held that it had no power to do so under the statutory instrument. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the court's refusal to waive them. It was held that the Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set fees at such a level that access to the courts, a fundamental right, was denied. The instrument was declared to be ultra vires the Act.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
This approach was used in R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779 to challenge the scale of court fees set by the Lord Chancellor. Witham wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370945096972

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
W wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee, but the local court held that it had no power to do so under the statutory instrument. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the court's refusal to waive them. It was held that the Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set fees at such a level that access to the courts, a fundamental right, was denied. The instrument was declared to be ultra vires the Act.
Answer
R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
This approach was used in R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779 to challenge the scale of court fees set by the Lord Chancellor. Witham wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370947456268

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
This approach was used in R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779 to challenge the scale of court fees set by the Lord Chancellor. Witham wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee, but the local court held that [...]. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the court's refusal to waive them. It was held that the Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set fees at such a level that access to the courts, a fundamental right, was denied. The instrument was declared to be ultra vires the Act.
Answer
it had no power to do so under the statutory instrument

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
itham [1997] 2 All ER 779 to challenge the scale of court fees set by the Lord Chancellor. Witham wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee, but the local court held that <span>it had no power to do so under the statutory instrument. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the c

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370949029132

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
This approach was used in R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779 to challenge the scale of court fees set by the Lord Chancellor. Witham wished to sue for defamation but the fee was set at £500 and he was unemployed. He asked for waiver of the fee, but the local court held that it had no power to do so under the statutory instrument. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the court's refusal to waive them. It was held that [...]. The instrument was declared to be ultra vires the Act.
Answer
the Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set fees at such a level that access to the courts, a fundamental right, was denied

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
nstrument. He sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decision in setting the court fees. He argued that his right of access to the court was being denied by the scale of fees and the court's refusal to waive them. It was held that <span>the Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set fees at such a level that access to the courts, a fundamental right, was denied. The instrument was declared to be ultra vires the Act.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370951650572

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Errors of law are a natural extension of the narrow ultra vires doctrine. It is a broad concept, but typically involves the decision-maker [...], for example by giving an interpretation to a word that it is not capable of bearing.
Answer
making a mistake regarding a question of law

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Errors of law are a natural extension of the narrow ultra vires doctrine. It is a broad concept, but typically involves the decision-maker making a mistake regarding a question of law, for example by giving an interpretation to a word that it is not capable of bearing.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370953223436

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Errors of law are a natural extension of the narrow ultra vires doctrine. It is a broad concept, but typically involves the decision-maker making a mistake regarding a question of law, for example by [...].
Answer
giving an interpretation to a word that it is not capable of bearing

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Errors of law are a natural extension of the narrow ultra vires doctrine. It is a broad concept, but typically involves the decision-maker making a mistake regarding a question of law, for example by giving an interpretation to a word that it is not capable of bearing.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370955844876

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147
Answer
A Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to claim compensation from the Commission, subject to certain conditions. The Commission ruled that Anisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing. Such an error meant that the decision had to be quashed.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
span>In early judicial review cases in this area, an error of law was only reviewable if it involved a question of jurisdiction, i.e. in relation to a determination of whether a legal power arose in the first place. However, following Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 such distinctions were removed. Anisminic Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to cla

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370958204172

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
A Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to claim compensation from the Commission, subject to certain conditions. The Commission ruled that Anisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing. Such an error meant that the decision had to be quashed.
Answer
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
span>In early judicial review cases in this area, an error of law was only reviewable if it involved a question of jurisdiction, i.e. in relation to a determination of whether a legal power arose in the first place. However, following Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 such distinctions were removed. Anisminic Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to cla

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370960563468

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In early judicial review cases in this area, an error of law was only reviewable if it involved a question of jurisdiction, i.e. in relation to a determination of whether a legal power arose in the first place. However, following Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 such distinctions were removed. Anisminic Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to claim compensation from the Commission, subject to certain conditions. The Commission ruled that Anisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because [...]. Such an error meant that the decision had to be quashed.
Answer
the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
lowed such companies to claim compensation from the Commission, subject to certain conditions. The Commission ruled that Anisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because <span>the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing. Such an error meant that the decision had to be quashed.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370963709196

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In early judicial review cases in this area, an error of law was only reviewable if it involved a question of jurisdiction, i.e. in relation to a determination of whether a legal power arose in the first place. However, following Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 such distinctions were removed. Anisminic Ltd. was a company with assets in Egypt, which were nationalised after the Suez conflict of 1956. UK legislation allowed such companies to claim compensation from the Commission, subject to certain conditions. The Commission ruled that Anisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing. Such an error meant that [...].
Answer
the decision had to be quashed

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
nisminic failed to satisfy these conditions. The House of Lords, however, ruled that this was an error of law because the Commission had misunderstood the rules of the scheme that it was supposed to be implementing. Such an error meant that <span>the decision had to be quashed.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370967117068

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable.
Answer
R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The House of Lords' decision in R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97 confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable. However, there are some qualifications to this general principle, as follows. (a) Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision. By 'decisive', it is meant that, but for th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370969476364

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The House of Lords' decision in R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97 confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable. However, there are some qualifications to this general principle, as follows.
(a) Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision. By 'decisive', it is meant that, but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.
(b) Where the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules, courts are often unwilling to intervene, for example, with statutes of a university. (This affected the actual decision in Page). This can also be extended (controversially) to a decision made by an inferior court, where it is deemed that Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final, as in [case].
(c) Where the power granted is so imprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because they would have come to a different view on what the law requires from that of the decision-maker. In R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289, the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that 'substantial' accommodates a wide range of meanings and warned of the dangers of attaching a spurious degree of precision on an inherently imprecise word. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situation, he held that the court should not intervene unless the decision-maker's conclusion was irrational.
Answer
Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the actual decision in Page). This can also be extended (controversially) to a decision made by an inferior court, where it is deemed that Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final, as in <span>Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374. (c) Where the power granted is so imprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370971835660

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The House of Lords' decision in R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97 confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable. However, there are some qualifications to this general principle, as follows.
(a) Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision. By 'decisive', it is meant that, but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.
(b) Where the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules, courts are often unwilling to intervene, for example, with statutes of a university. (This affected the actual decision in Page). This can also be extended (controversially) to a decision made by an inferior court, where it is deemed that Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final, as in Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374.
(c) Where the power granted is so imprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because they would have come to a different view on what the law requires from that of the decision-maker. In [case], the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that 'substantial' accommodates a wide range of meanings and warned of the dangers of attaching a spurious degree of precision on an inherently imprecise word. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situation, he held that the court should not intervene unless the decision-maker's conclusion was irrational.
Answer
R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
mprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because they would have come to a different view on what the law requires from that of the decision-maker. In <span>R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289, the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that 'substantial' accommodat

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370974194956

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The House of Lords' decision in R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97 confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable. However, there are some qualifications to this general principle, as follows.
(a) Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision. By 'decisive', it is meant that, but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.
(b) Where the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules, courts are often unwilling to intervene, for example, with statutes of a university. (This affected the actual decision in Page). This can also be extended (controversially) to a decision made by an inferior court, where it is deemed that Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final, as in Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374.
(c) Where the power granted is so imprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because they would have come to a different view on what the law requires from that of the decision-maker. In R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289, the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that [...]. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situation, he held that the court should not intervene unless the decision-maker's conclusion was irrational.
Answer
'substantial' accommodates a wide range of meanings and warned of the dangers of attaching a spurious degree of precision on an inherently imprecise word

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289, the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that <span>'substantial' accommodates a wide range of meanings and warned of the dangers of attaching a spurious degree of precision on an inherently imprecise word. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situatio

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370975767820

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The House of Lords' decision in R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page [1993] 1 All ER 97 confirmed that all errors of law are reviewable. However, there are some qualifications to this general principle, as follows.
(a) Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision. By 'decisive', it is meant that, but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.
(b) Where the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules, courts are often unwilling to intervene, for example, with statutes of a university. (This affected the actual decision in Page). This can also be extended (controversially) to a decision made by an inferior court, where it is deemed that Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final, as in Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374.
(c) Where the power granted is so imprecise that it is capable of being interpreted in a wide range of different ways, the courts will not always quash a decision just because they would have come to a different view on what the law requires from that of the decision-maker. In R v Monopolies Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 289, the House of Lords had to consider how to interpret how the phrase 'a substantial part of the United Kingdom' should be interpreted. Lord Mustill observed that 'substantial' accommodates a wide range of meanings and warned of the dangers of attaching a spurious degree of precision on an inherently imprecise word. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situation, he held that [...].
Answer
the court should not intervene unless the decision-maker's conclusion was irrational

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
precision on an inherently imprecise word. His view was that the word was so broad and imprecise that different decision-makers might reach differing conclusions when applying them to the facts of a given case. In this situation, he held that <span>the court should not intervene unless the decision-maker's conclusion was irrational. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370980224268

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The initial ‘factual’ situation, in which judicial review has for some time been permitted, is where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact – this is known as a precedent fact. An example is [case]
Answer
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
review has for some time been permitted, is where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact – this is known as a precedent fact. An example is <span>White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370982583564

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The initial ‘factual’ situation, in which judicial review has for some time been permitted, is where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact – this is known as a [...]. An example is White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
Answer
precedent fact

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
’ situation, in which judicial review has for some time been permitted, is where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact – this is known as a <span>precedent fact. An example is White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370984156428

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The initial ‘factual’ situation, in which judicial review has for some time been permitted, is [...] – this is known as a precedent fact. An example is White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
Answer
where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The initial ‘factual’ situation, in which judicial review has for some time been permitted, is where a decision-maker's power to decide on a particular matter (i.e. its jurisdiction to do so) depends upon it making an initial finding of fact – this is known as a precedent fact. An example is White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370986777868

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
Answer
In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that it could review the decision on that basis.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548 In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370989137164

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that it could review the decision on that basis.
Answer
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548 In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370991496460

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on [...]. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that it could review the decision on that basis.
Answer
the land not being 'parkland'

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548 In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appe

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370993069324

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that [...]. The Court of Appeal held that it could review the decision on that basis.
Answer
the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ll ER 548 In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that <span>the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that it could review the decision on that basis.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370994642188

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
White and Collins v Minister of Health [1939] 3 All ER 548
In this case a local authority had statutory powers to compulsorily purchase land but these powers were dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that [...].
Answer
it could review the decision on that basis

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e dependant on the land not being 'parkland'. A landowner objected to the compulsory purchase of his land on the grounds that the local authority had mistakenly failed to realise that the land was part of a park. The Court of Appeal held that <span>it could review the decision on that basis.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370997263628

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case] the power to detain an illegal entrant was worded objectively in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represented a 'precedent fact', which had to been shown to exist for the power to detain to arise in the first place. Thus, the court itself could review the facts to ensure that the person was indeed an illegal entrant.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74 the power to detain an illegal entrant was worded objectively in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represen

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370999622924

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74 the power to detain an illegal entrant was worded objectively in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represented a [...], which had to been shown to exist for the power to detain to arise in the first place. Thus, the court itself could review the facts to ensure that the person was indeed an illegal entrant.
Answer
'precedent fact'

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74 the power to detain an illegal entrant was worded objectively in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represented a <span>'precedent fact', which had to been shown to exist for the power to detain to arise in the first place. Thus, the court itself could review the facts to ensure that the person was indeed an illegal en

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371001195788

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja, [1984] AC 74 the power to detain an illegal entrant was worded objectively in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represented a 'precedent fact', which had to been shown to exist for the power to detain to arise in the first place. Thus, [...].
Answer
the court itself could review the facts to ensure that the person was indeed an illegal entrant

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y in the relevant statute; the provision stated that persons may be detained if they are ’an illegal entrant'. This represented a 'precedent fact', which had to been shown to exist for the power to detain to arise in the first place. Thus, <span>the court itself could review the facts to ensure that the person was indeed an illegal entrant.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371003817228

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Usually, a body is given a wide discretion to enquire into whether certain facts exist. (An example would be: 'if it appears to the local authority that a person is in need of assistance'.) These are subjective powers, requiring [...], which the courts will not review merely because a complainant thinks a different view of the situation should have been taken. Such powers are usually said to raise questions of 'fact and degree', which are primarily for the decision-maker to evaluate, not the courts.
Answer
judgment rather than objective fact-finding

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
span>Usually, a body is given a wide discretion to enquire into whether certain facts exist. (An example would be: 'if it appears to the local authority that a person is in need of assistance'.) These are subjective powers, requiring judgment rather than objective fact-finding, which the courts will not review merely because a complainant thinks a different view of the situation should have been taken. Such powers are usually said to raise questions of 'fac

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371005390092

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Usually, a body is given a wide discretion to enquire into whether certain facts exist. (An example would be: 'if it appears to the local authority that a person is in need of assistance'.) These are subjective powers, requiring judgment rather than objective fact-finding, which the courts [...]. Such powers are usually said to raise questions of 'fact and degree', which are primarily for the decision-maker to evaluate, not the courts.
Answer
will not review merely because a complainant thinks a different view of the situation should have been taken

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ire into whether certain facts exist. (An example would be: 'if it appears to the local authority that a person is in need of assistance'.) These are subjective powers, requiring judgment rather than objective fact-finding, which the courts <span>will not review merely because a complainant thinks a different view of the situation should have been taken. Such powers are usually said to raise questions of 'fact and degree', which are primarily for the decision-maker to evaluate, not the courts.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371008011532

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the [...]. If a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all, the courts have felt able to overturn the decision.
Answer
'no evidence rule'

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the 'no evidence rule'. If a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all, the courts have felt able to overturn the decision.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371009584396

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the 'no evidence rule'. If [...], the courts have felt able to overturn the decision.
Answer
a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the 'no evidence rule'. If a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all, the courts have felt able to overturn the decision.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371011157260

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the 'no evidence rule'. If a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all, the courts have felt able [...].
Answer
to overturn the decision

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
<head>The second kind of factual error , which can amount to illegality, relates to the 'no evidence rule'. If a finding of fact, on which a decision is based, is supported by no evidence at all, the courts have felt able to overturn the decision. <html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371013778700

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Mistake or ignorance of an established fact can be a ground for review under illegality
Answer
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The answer to this question has proved controversial and the law has developed slowly in this area. In Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014 it was recognised that factual mistake, described by Scarman LJ in the Court of Appeal as 'misunderstanding or ignorance of an established fact' and by Lord Wilberforce in the Lords a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371016137996

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The answer to this question has proved controversial and the law has developed slowly in this area. In Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014 it was recognised that factual mistake, described by Scarman LJ in the Court of Appeal as 'misunderstanding or ignorance of an established fact' and by Lord Wilberforce in the Lords as acting 'upon [...]', could be a ground of judicial review.
Answer
an incorrect basis of fact

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014 it was recognised that factual mistake, described by Scarman LJ in the Court of Appeal as 'misunderstanding or ignorance of an established fact' and by Lord Wilberforce in the Lords as acting 'upon <span>an incorrect basis of fact', could be a ground of judicial review. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371019545868

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014
Answer
The case concerned a decision by the Secretary of State to halt the re-introduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduction would lead to educational chaos and undue disruption. Lord Wilberforce stated in relation to factual errors:

'If a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been made upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, and whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account.'

The House of Lords concluded that the Secretary of State had either misunderstood or was not informed as to the nature and effect of the professional educational advice available to the local education authority and had wrongly jumped to conclusions. His argument that disruption to pupils' education was likely (because of the shortage of time in which to bring in the new policy) was not supported by any evidence but was based upon supposition, in the court's view. Lord Wilberforce concluded that:

'… if he [the Secretary of State] had exercised his judgment on the basis of the factual situation in which this newly elected authority was placed – with a policy approved by its electorate, and massively supported by the parents – there was no ground – however much he might disagree with the new policy, and regret such administrative dislocation as was brought about by the change – upon which he could find that the authority was acting or proposing to act unreasonably.'


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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014 The case concerned a decision by the Secretary of State to halt the re-introduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduc

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371021380876

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The case concerned a decision by the Secretary of State to halt the re-introduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduction would lead to educational chaos and undue disruption. Lord Wilberforce stated in relation to factual errors:

'If a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been made upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, and whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account.'

The House of Lords concluded that the Secretary of State had either misunderstood or was not informed as to the nature and effect of the professional educational advice available to the local education authority and had wrongly jumped to conclusions. His argument that disruption to pupils' education was likely (because of the shortage of time in which to bring in the new policy) was not supported by any evidence but was based upon supposition, in the court's view. Lord Wilberforce concluded that:

'… if he [the Secretary of State] had exercised his judgment on the basis of the factual situation in which this newly elected authority was placed – with a policy approved by its electorate, and massively supported by the parents – there was no ground – however much he might disagree with the new policy, and regret such administrative dislocation as was brought about by the change – upon which he could find that the authority was acting or proposing to act unreasonably.'

Answer
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014 The case concerned a decision by the Secretary of State to halt the re-introduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduc

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371023740172

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC, [1977] AC 1014
The case concerned a decision by the Secretary of State to halt the re-introduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduction would lead to educational chaos and undue disruption. Lord Wilberforce stated in relation to factual errors:

'If [...], then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been made upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, and whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account.'

The House of Lords concluded that the Secretary of State had either misunderstood or was not informed as to the nature and effect of the professional educational advice available to the local education authority and had wrongly jumped to conclusions. His argument that disruption to pupils' education was likely (because of the shortage of time in which to bring in the new policy) was not supported by any evidence but was based upon supposition, in the court's view. Lord Wilberforce concluded that:

'… if he [the Secretary of State] had exercised his judgment on the basis of the factual situation in which this newly elected authority was placed – with a policy approved by its electorate, and massively supported by the parents – there was no ground – however much he might disagree with the new policy, and regret such administrative dislocation as was brought about by the change – upon which he could find that the authority was acting or proposing to act unreasonably.'

Answer
a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
roduction of grammar schools proposed by the newly elected local authority: he had believed that the re-introduction would lead to educational chaos and undue disruption. Lord Wilberforce stated in relation to factual errors: 'If <span>a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgme

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371026361612

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330
Answer
This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination given to the CICB by a policewoman. The medical examination was to determine whether A had suffered the injuries that she claimed as a result of rape. The policewoman's testimony was that the examination suggested that A's claims were probably false, whereas the report of the examination, which was not seen by the Board, was in fact consistent with the injuries that A claimed to have suffered. Although the House of Lords recognised that a mistake of fact could form the basis for a judicial review claim, they in fact decided the case on the alternative basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Chapter 16), so the comments made were obiter only.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330 four of the law lords accepted (obiter) that a mistake of fact could found a ground for review. This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination giv

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371028720908

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination given to the CICB by a policewoman. The medical examination was to determine whether A had suffered the injuries that she claimed as a result of rape. The policewoman's testimony was that the examination suggested that A's claims were probably false, whereas the report of the examination, which was not seen by the Board, was in fact consistent with the injuries that A claimed to have suffered. Although the House of Lords recognised that a mistake of fact could form the basis for a judicial review claim, they in fact decided the case on the alternative basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Chapter 16), so the comments made were obiter only.
Answer
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330 four of the law lords accepted (obiter) that a mistake of fact could found a ground for review. This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination giv

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371033439500

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
[case] has brought some much-needed clarification to this ground of review, however, and seems to have established that judicial review can be sought on the basis of a mistaken fact. Carnwath LJ said in that case:

'In our view, the time has come to accept that a mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness is a separate head of challenge in an appeal on a point of law, at least in those statutory contexts where the parties share an interest in co-operating to achieve the correct result.'

Answer
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; 2 WLR 1351

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; 2 WLR 1351 has brought some much-needed clarification to this ground of review, however, and seems to have established that judicial review can be sought on the basis of a mistaken fact. Carnwath

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371035798796

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Established that judicial review can be sought on the basis of a mistaken fact.
Answer
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; 2 WLR 1351

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; 2 WLR 1351 has brought some much-needed clarification to this ground of review, however, and seems to have established that judicial review can be sought on the basis of a mistaken fact. Carnwath

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371039206668

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], a decision to ban stag hunting was ultimately found to be unlawful. In debating the case in the Court of Appeal Simon Brown LJ pointed to three kinds of considerations, which may present themselves to a decision-maker. These are: (a) factors which a decision-maker must take into account ('mandatory' factors); (b) factors which he must not take into account ('prohibitory' factors); and (c) factors which the decision-maker may have regard to, if he or she thinks it right to do so.
Answer
R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20, a decision to ban stag hunting was ultimately found to be unlawful. In debating the case in the Court of Appeal Simon Brown LJ pointed to three kinds of considerations, which may pre

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371042614540

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate. The House of Lords held that, despite the local authority's desire to better the workers' conditions, it had had no regard to the interests of ratepayers (a relevant factor) when coming to its decision.
Answer
Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate. The House of Lords held that, despite the local autho

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371044973836

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, [...]. The House of Lords held that, despite the local authority's desire to better the workers' conditions, it had had no regard to the interests of ratepayers (a relevant factor) when coming to its decision.
Answer
a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate. The House of Lords held that, despite the local authority's desire to better the workers' conditions, it had had no regard to the interests of ratepayers (a relevant factor) when com

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371046546700

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate. The House of Lords held that, [...].
Answer
despite the local authority's desire to better the workers' conditions, it had had no regard to the interests of ratepayers (a relevant factor) when coming to its decision

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, a local authority had failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for its low-wage workers above the market rate. The House of Lords held that, despite the local authority's desire to better the workers' conditions, it had had no regard to the interests of ratepayers (a relevant factor) when coming to its decision.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371049168140

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case] the House of Lords (in a majority decision) held that the local authority's consideration of their own resources was a relevant factor.
Answer
R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry, [1997] 2 WLR 459

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry, [1997] 2 WLR 459 the House of Lords (in a majority decision) held that the local authority's consideration of their own resources was a relevant factor.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371051527436

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry, [1997] 2 WLR 459 the House of Lords (in a majority decision) held that [...].
Answer
the local authority's consideration of their own resources was a relevant factor

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry, [1997] 2 WLR 459 the House of Lords (in a majority decision) held that the local authority's consideration of their own resources was a relevant factor.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371054148876

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case] Neill LJ considered that the court was ill-equipped to deal with decisions concerned with balancing competing claims on the public purse.
Answer
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte P, [1995] 1 WLR

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte P, [1995] 1 WLR Neill LJ considered that the court was ill-equipped to deal with decisions concerned with balancing competing claims on the public purse.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371056508172

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte P, [1995] 1 WLR Neill LJ considered that [...].
Answer
the court was ill-equipped to deal with decisions concerned with balancing competing claims on the public purse

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte P, [1995] 1 WLR Neill LJ considered that the court was ill-equipped to deal with decisions concerned with balancing competing claims on the public purse.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371059916044

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
[case] 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.
Answer
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] 1 All ER 694

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

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 unfavoura

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371062275340

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

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

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







Flashcard 1371063848204

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 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 [...].
Answer
he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
laint 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 <span>he was exercising his discretion not to refer, for a wrong or improper purpose.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371066469644

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Sometimes, a statute will clearly indicate the purpose for which it is granting power. In many situations, however, the courts have to imply a purpose by construing the statute as a whole. In [case] the implied purpose of the power to revoke television licences was not to raise revenue, but rather to ensure that such licences were not wrongfully used or obtained. Thus, Congreve should not have had his licence revoked merely because he bought it before the licence fees increased.
Answer
Congreve v Home Office, [1976] QB 629

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Sometimes, a statute will clearly indicate the purpose for which it is granting power. In many situations, however, the courts have to imply a purpose by construing the statute as a whole. In Congreve v Home Office, [1976] QB 629 the implied purpose of the power to revoke television licences was not to raise revenue, but rather to ensure that such licences were not wrongfully used or obtained. Thus, Congreve sh

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371068828940

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Sometimes, a statute will clearly indicate the purpose for which it is granting power. In many situations, however, the courts have to imply a purpose by construing the statute as a whole. In Congreve v Home Office, [1976] QB 629 the implied purpose of the power to revoke television licences was [...]. Thus, Congreve should not have had his licence revoked merely because he bought it before the licence fees increased.
Answer
not to raise revenue, but rather to ensure that such licences were not wrongfully used or obtained

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
r which it is granting power. In many situations, however, the courts have to imply a purpose by construing the statute as a whole. In Congreve v Home Office, [1976] QB 629 the implied purpose of the power to revoke television licences was <span>not to raise revenue, but rather to ensure that such licences were not wrongfully used or obtained. Thus, Congreve should not have had his licence revoked merely because he bought it before the licence fees increased. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371071450380

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
If given discretionary powers, decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In [case] it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force. The House of Lords held that the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force. He could not, therefore, bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If given discretionary powers, decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into forc

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371073809676

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
If given discretionary powers, decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by [...]. The House of Lords held that the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force. He could not, therefore, bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers.
Answer
refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by <span>refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force. The House of Lords held that the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371075382540

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
If given discretionary powers, decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force. The House of Lords held that [...]. He could not, therefore, bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers.
Answer
the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force. The House of Lords held that <span>the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force. He could not, therefore, bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers.</span

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371076955404

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
If given discretionary powers, decision-makers must exercise that discretion and not 'fetter' themselves. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, [1995] 1 AC 513 it was held that the Home Secretary had fettered his discretion by refusing to consider whether to bring the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (enacted in 1988) into force. The House of Lords held that the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force. He could not, therefore, [...].
Answer
bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
orce. The House of Lords held that the statutory power to set a date for the implementation of the 1988 Act imposed a continuing obligation or discretion on the Secretary of State to consider bringing it into force. He could not, therefore, <span>bind himself not to exercise that discretion by introducing an inconsistent 'tariff' scheme, which is what he had done using prerogative powers.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371079576844

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
However, sometimes firm policies have been allowed, providing that there is evidence that individual cases could or have been decided on their merits. [case] is a clear case on this point.
Answer
British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, sometimes firm policies have been allowed, providing that there is evidence that individual cases could or have been decided on their merits. British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 is a clear case on this point.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371081936140

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
However, sometimes firm policies have been allowed, providing that [...]. British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 is a clear case on this point.
Answer
there is evidence that individual cases could or have been decided on their merits

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, sometimes firm policies have been allowed, providing that there is evidence that individual cases could or have been decided on their merits. British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 is a clear case on this point.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371085344012

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case] the court stated that:

'The Minister is entitled to have in mind his policy. To this extent the reference to keeping an open mind does not mean an empty mind. His mind must be kept ajar.’

Answer
R v Secretary for the Environment, ex parte Brent LBC, [1983] 3 All ER 321

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Secretary for the Environment, ex parte Brent LBC, [1983] 3 All ER 321 the court stated that: 'The Minister is entitled to have in mind his policy. To this extent the reference to keeping an open mind does not mean an empty mind. His mind must

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371089538316

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610
Answer
The Board of Trade had a policy of not awarding grants for purchase of items that individually cost less than £25. British Oxygen had bought a number of items, individually costing £20, and so did not qualify for a grant. The House of Lords decided that the policy was within the Board's discretion, otherwise they would be overwhelmed with trivial applications. There was evidence that the Board had considered British Oxygen's application carefully, though, and had therefore not acted unlawfully.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 The Board of Trade had a policy of not awarding grants for purchase of items that individually cost less than £25. British Oxygen had bought a number of items, individually costing £20,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371091897612

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The Board of Trade had a policy of not awarding grants for purchase of items that individually cost less than £25. British Oxygen had bought a number of items, individually costing £20, and so did not qualify for a grant. The House of Lords decided that the policy was within the Board's discretion, otherwise they would be overwhelmed with trivial applications. There was evidence that the Board had considered British Oxygen's application carefully, though, and had therefore not acted unlawfully.
Answer
British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 The Board of Trade had a policy of not awarding grants for purchase of items that individually cost less than £25. British Oxygen had bought a number of items, individually costing £20,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371095305484

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The courts will not, however, automatically accept an assurance by a decision-maker that it has 'not shut its ears to the application'. In [case], the court concluded there had been an unlawful fettering of discretion in a situation where a policy on student grants, although worded flexibly, had never in fact resulted in an award (despite 300 appeals against refusal).
Answer
R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Collymore [1995] ELR 217

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The courts will not, however, automatically accept an assurance by a decision-maker that it has 'not shut its ears to the application'. In R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Collymore [1995] ELR 217, the court concluded there had been an unlawful fettering of discretion in a situation where a policy on student grants, although worded flexibly, had never in fact resulted in an awa

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371097664780

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The courts will not, however, automatically accept an assurance by a decision-maker that it has 'not shut its ears to the application'. In R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Collymore [1995] ELR 217, the court concluded there [...] (despite 300 appeals against refusal).
Answer
had been an unlawful fettering of discretion in a situation where a policy on student grants, although worded flexibly, had never in fact resulted in an award

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>The courts will not, however, automatically accept an assurance by a decision-maker that it has 'not shut its ears to the application'. In R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Collymore [1995] ELR 217, the court concluded there had been an unlawful fettering of discretion in a situation where a policy on student grants, although worded flexibly, had never in fact resulted in an award (despite 300 appeals against refusal). <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371100286220

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament by yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker and this was not the case in this instance. It was considered imperative that the courts should uphold the importance of the principle of the rule of law, by asserting the independent function of the Director in carrying out his statutory responsibilities to investigate allegations of fraud and corruption.
Answer
R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin)

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawfu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371102645516

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that [...] by yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker and this was not the case in this instance. It was considered imperative that the courts should uphold the importance of the principle of the rule of law, by asserting the independent function of the Director in carrying out his statutory responsibilities to investigate allegations of fraud and corruption.
Answer
the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that <span>the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament by yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371104218380

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament by [...]. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker and this was not the case in this instance. It was considered imperative that the courts should uphold the importance of the principle of the rule of law, by asserting the independent function of the Director in carrying out his statutory responsibilities to investigate allegations of fraud and corruption.
Answer
yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament by <span>yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker and this was not the case in this instance. It wa

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371105791244

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the Administrative Court declared that the SFO Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia had been unlawful. It was held that the Director had ceased to exercise the power to make the independent judgement conferred on him by Parliament by yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that [...] and this was not the case in this instance. It was considered imperative that the courts should uphold the importance of the principle of the rule of law, by asserting the independent function of the Director in carrying out his statutory responsibilities to investigate allegations of fraud and corruption.
Answer
there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y yielding to a threat allegedly made by a representative of the Saudi Government to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff relating to future contractual arrangements. Submission to a threat would only be lawful when it was demonstrated that <span>there was no alternative course open to the decision- maker and this was not the case in this instance. It was considered imperative that the courts should uphold the importance of the principle of the rule of law, by asserting the independent

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371108412684

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The House of Lords concluded that the Director was entitled to decide that [...].
Answer
the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by wider public considerations of national security and diplomatic interests

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The House of Lords concluded that the Director was entitled to decide that the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by wider public considerations of national security and diplomatic interests.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371111034124

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
R (Luton BC, Nottingham CC, Waltham Forest LBC, Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin)
Answer
The Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that while the Secretary of State was entitled to adopt rules, each individual project should have been considered on its own merits, after careful consultation with each of the claimants. Instead, rules had been applied in a rigid way and the Secretary of State was asked by the court to reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an 'open mind'.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in R (Luton BC, Nottingham CC, Waltham Forest LBC, Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin), the Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that while the Secretary of State was entitle

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371113393420

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that while the Secretary of State was entitled to adopt rules, each individual project should have been considered on its own merits, after careful consultation with each of the claimants. Instead, rules had been applied in a rigid way and the Secretary of State was asked by the court to reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an 'open mind'.
Answer
R (Luton BC, Nottingham CC, Waltham Forest LBC, Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin)

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in R (Luton BC, Nottingham CC, Waltham Forest LBC, Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin), the Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that while the Secretary of State was entitle

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371115752716

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
in R (Luton BC, Nottingham CC, Waltham Forest LBC, Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin), the Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that [...]. Instead, rules had been applied in a rigid way and the Secretary of State was asked by the court to reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an 'open mind'.
Answer
while the Secretary of State was entitled to adopt rules, each individual project should have been considered on its own merits, after careful consultation with each of the claimants

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Newham LBC, Kent CC and Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin), the Secretary of State for Education (in July 2010) cancelled funding for the project 'Building Schools for the Future'. The court found that <span>while the Secretary of State was entitled to adopt rules, each individual project should have been considered on its own merits, after careful consultation with each of the claimants. Instead, rules had been applied in a rigid way and the Secretary of State was asked by the court to reconsider the position of each of the claimants with an 'open mind'.</span

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371118374156

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case] it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA)

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because the child

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371120733452

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because [...]. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because <span>the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371122306316

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring [...] should not have been applied to Q. This was because the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371123879180

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore [...].
Answer
disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
applied to Q. This was because the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore <span>disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371126500620

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18
Answer
The National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's delegation of its powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager. This was held to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18, the National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's de

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371128859916

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's delegation of its powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager. This was held to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers.
Answer
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18, the National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's de

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371131219212

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18, the National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's delegation of its powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager. This was held [...].
Answer
to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager. This was held <span>to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371132792076

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18, the National Dock Labour Board was required by legislation to delegate all appropriate functions to local dock boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's delegation of its powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that [...]. This was held to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers.
Answer
effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
boards. There was therefore no question of the National Dock Board's delegation of its powers to the local dock boards being unlawful as it had been authorised to do so by legislation. However, one local dock board passed a resolution that <span>effectively gave its powers to suspend dock workers to the port manager. This was held to constitute an unlawful delegation of the local dock board's powers.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371135413516

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s [...] authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.
Answer
101

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s 101 authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371136986380

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act [...], s 101 authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.
Answer
1972

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s 101 authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371138559244

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the [statute] authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.
Answer
Local Government Act 1972, s 101

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s 101 authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371140918540

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s 101 authorises [...].
Answer
local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Some statutes will expressly allow the decision-maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. For example, the Local Government Act 1972, s 101 authorises local authorities to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees or by council officers or by another local authority.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371144588556

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], the court had to consider whether the Secretary of State had the power to delegate to Immigration Inspectors the responsibility for issuing notices of intention to deport aliens. Oladehinde argued that Parliament could not have intended such a significant delegation. He contended that decisions may be taken by Home Office officials but not by Immigration Inspectors. The House of Lords held that, as Immigration Inspectors are civil servants they come under the Carltona principle and therefore there had been lawful delegation by the minister.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254, the court had to consider whether the Secretary of State had the power to delegate to Immigration Inspectors the responsibility for issuing notices of intention to deport aliens. Ol

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371146947852

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oladehinde [1991] 1 AC 254, the court had to consider whether the Secretary of State had the power to delegate to Immigration Inspectors the responsibility for issuing notices of intention to deport aliens. Oladehinde argued that Parliament could not have intended such a significant delegation. He contended that decisions may be taken by Home Office officials but not by Immigration Inspectors. The House of Lords held that, [...].
Answer
as Immigration Inspectors are civil servants they come under the Carltona principle and therefore there had been lawful delegation by the minister

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n to deport aliens. Oladehinde argued that Parliament could not have intended such a significant delegation. He contended that decisions may be taken by Home Office officials but not by Immigration Inspectors. The House of Lords held that, <span>as Immigration Inspectors are civil servants they come under the Carltona principle and therefore there had been lawful delegation by the minister.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371149569292

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The Carltona principle has since been expanded in [case] to permit an office holder, such as a Chief Constable, to discharge all but the most important of his functions through suitable subordinates, such as police officers, for whom he is responsible and answerable.
Answer
R (Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices [2002] EWHC 1087

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Carltona principle has since been expanded in R (Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices [2002] EWHC 1087 to permit an office holder, such as a Chief Constable, to discharge all but the most important of his functions through suitable subordinates, such as police officers, for whom he is r

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371151928588

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The Carltona principle has since been expanded in R (Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices [2002] EWHC 1087 to permit an office holder, such as a Chief Constable, to [...].
Answer
discharge all but the most important of his functions through suitable subordinates, such as police officers, for whom he is responsible and answerable

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Carltona principle has since been expanded in R (Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices [2002] EWHC 1087 to permit an office holder, such as a Chief Constable, to discharge all but the most important of his functions through suitable subordinates, such as police officers, for whom he is responsible and answerable.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371154812172

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], the Divisional Court confirmed that where an office, such as that of Chief Constable, is created by statute, and the responsibilities of the office created by statute are such that delegation is inevitable, there will be an implied power to delegate. It did not consider this to be an instance of the Carltona principle as such, as that strictly applies to the ministerial context, but felt that it was indistinguishable in practice.
Answer
DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court confirmed that where an office, such as that of Chief Constable, is created by statute, and the responsibilities of the office created by statute are such that d

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371157171468

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court confirmed that [...]. It did not consider this to be an instance of the Carltona principle as such, as that strictly applies to the ministerial context, but felt that it was indistinguishable in practice.
Answer
where an office, such as that of Chief Constable, is created by statute, and the responsibilities of the office created by statute are such that delegation is inevitable, there will be an implied power to delegate

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court confirmed that where an office, such as that of Chief Constable, is created by statute, and the responsibilities of the office created by statute are such that delegation is inevitable, there will be an implied power to delegate. It did not consider this to be an instance of the Carltona principle as such, as that strictly applies to the ministerial context, but felt that it was indistinguishable in practice.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371159792908

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In [case], the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be subject to a requirement that the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level, having regard to the nature of the power in question.
Answer
DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be subject to a requirement that the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371162152204

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be [...].
Answer
subject to a requirement that the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level, having regard to the nature of the power in question

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be subject to a requirement that the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level, having regard to the nature of the power in question.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371163725068

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be subject to a requirement that [...], having regard to the nature of the power in question.
Answer
the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931, the Divisional Court considered that the Carltona principle should be subject to a requirement that the seniority of the official exercising a power should be of an appropriate level, having regard to the nature of the power in question.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371166346508

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
The Carltona principle will evidently not apply where [...]. But will any limitations be implied by the common law? This is not entirely clear.
Answer
statute, expressly or by necessary implication, makes it clear that the power must be exercised by the minister in person

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Carltona principle will evidently not apply where statute, expressly or by necessary implication, makes it clear that the power must be exercised by the minister in person. But will any limitations be implied by the common law? This is not entirely clear.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371169492236

Tags
#law #negligence #nervous-shock #tort
Question
A primary victim (claimant) is [...].
Answer
someone who suffers nervous shock as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical safety

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A primary victim (claimant) is someone who suffers nervous shock as a result of reasonable fear for their own physical safety.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371177356556

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27
Answer
The defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was re

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371179715852

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
The defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was recoverable. In addition, the metal would have been sold at a profit and the loss of profit on that particular damaged metal was also recoverable as consequential economic loss.
Answer
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27 the defendants negligently cut off power to the plaintiff’s factory ruining some melts that were being processed. The damaged metal was physical damage and, therefore, the loss was re

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371182075148

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644
Answer
The claimant was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies who were unable to operate a service until the bridge was repaired, and sought to recover this cost from the defendant. This was recoverable but lay at the outer fringe of recoverability.

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
At the boundary of consequential economic loss, the claimant in Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644 was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies w

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371184434444

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
The claimant was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies who were unable to operate a service until the bridge was repaired, and sought to recover this cost from the defendant. This was recoverable but lay at the outer fringe of recoverability.
Answer
Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
At the boundary of consequential economic loss, the claimant in Conarken Group Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 644 was the owner of a bridge damaged when it was hit by a lorry due to the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant, Network Rail, was obliged to compensate train operating companies w

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371186793740

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
[case] is an interesting decision because in that case Neill LJ set out a list of factors to consider in determining whether a duty of care arises in respect of a negligent misstatement. These are:
1. the purpose for which the statement was made;
2. the purpose for which the statement was communicated;
3. the relationship between the advisor, advisee and any third party;
4. the size of the class to which the recipient of the advice belongs;
5. the knowledge and experience of the advisee; and
6. whether the statement could be reasonably relied upon.
Answer
McNaughton

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

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
McNaughton is an interesting decision because in that case Neill LJ set out a list of factors to consider in determining whether a duty of care arises in respect of a negligent misstatement. These

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1371189153036

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question