Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Judicial Review (Procedural grounds (Will not be granted if application…

- - - - GCHQ case - courts did not have expertise to rule on issues involving national security
    - - Gives wide discretion to judges in determining whether the case can be heard
    - - Established in O'Reilly v Mackman
      - Exception - if C brings a collateral challenge (mixture of public and private law)
    - - Exception 1 - planning decisions: 6 weeks
      - Exception 2 - procurement decisions: 30 days
  - - - s.31 of SCA 1981
    - - Established in Unison case
    - - For e.g. Child Poverty Action Group wrt poor families
    - - Established in World Development Movement case
        
        If applicant does not bring action, can any other party do so?
        
        Applicant must be respected party of some societal standing (for e.g. WDM had many British MPs as members)
- - - - Fulham Corporation case - power to establish baths did not extend to power to set up laundry service
      - Barnard case - Board had power to discipline workers, delegated power to manager. Held to be ultra vires as power was not for Board to delegate.
        
        Exception 1 - if statute specifies power can be delegated
        
        Exception 2 - Carltona doctrine - civil servants can make decisions based on Minister's power, but only applicable for central govt bodies
      - British Oxygen case - rules are desirable but cannot be so strict that individual merits are not considered
    - - Bromley case - Govt ruled to not have considered taxpayers' interests in proposed fare reduction scheme
      - Grounds of last resort - only applicable in decisions "so unreasonable no reasonable authority could have come to it"
        
        Walker case - prisoner could only gain parole by attending courses, but no courses offered due to financial constraints
    - - Always followed unless specifically extinguished by statute
        
        Right to reasons
        
        Al-Fayed - immigration decision handed down without reasons, court held that reasons must be given or impossible to challenge (despite statute stating that Minister had discretion to not provide reasons).
        
        Rules against bias
        
        Dimes case - Lord Chancellor did not disclose financial interests in company he was making financial decisions about
        
        Pinochet No.2 - Lord Hoffmann did not disclose vested interest in case, by proxy of a Board appointment in related organisation
        
        Right to fair hearing - affected party has right to notice and fair hearing
        
        Ridge v Baldwin - police chief not given opportunity to make representations
      - Failure to follow statutory procedure - Duty to consult: this duty only exists if statute explicitly provides for it
        
        Moseley - Local council held consultation before implementing scheme but the "consultation" was effectively "take it or leave it" thus duty unfulfilled.
  - - - Proportionality test:
        
        Was the protected interest compromised in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
        
        Were there less restrictive alternatives?
        
        Was there an adequate relationship of proportionality between the derogation and the benefits?
        
        Daly case - prisoner forced to leave cell during checks, guards had access to private material. Disproportionate as too intrusive (infringement of privacy rights) and no consideration of individual prisoners
        
        Established in SSHD case
      - Central to ECHR cases
    - - Promises based on following proper procedures are binding
        
        Greenpeace case - where Govt promised fullest public consultation but HL held the actual consultation was inadequate and ordered another consultation.
      - Promises based on contents of decisions - generally not binding as would fetter govt discretion heavily
        
        Exception - when a very clear promise is made to a very small group with limited financial implications for decision-makers
        
        Coughlan case