Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
judicial review (categories of illegality or 'ultra vires' (rule…
judicial review
categories of illegality or 'ultra vires'
acting without legal authority
R v Richmond-upon-thames
135
rule against delegation
general rule that decision-making powers cannot be further delegated/ 'sub-delegated'
vine v national dock labour board
two exceptions
carltona principle
carltona v comissioner of work
s - sub-delegating decision-makign powers to civil servants in their departments is an exception to rule
S 101 Local Government Act 1972
local authourities may delegate decision-making powers to committees / individual officer provided they ,make formal resolution to do so
'fettering' of discretion
acting under dictation of another
Lavender & Sons Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Gov
- Minister had formulated a general policy based on another ministers objection. minister had fettered his discretion by not opening his mind to Lavender & Sons' application
applying a general politcy as to the excersise of discretion in too strict a manner
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
139
using powers for an improper or unauthourised purpose
Congreve v Home Office
140 - HO said tv licence going to be raised from 150 to 200 and 20'000 people took out new ones so old would expire - court o appeal found HO had no authourity to revoke licences
dual purposes
primary purpose rule
westminister corporation v LNWR 1905
over a cen ago, london & northern western railway wanted judicial review of decision to build public loos, which were not to provide conveniences by to build a subway. HoL fond in favour of westminister, there are dual purposes behind decsion but provided the permitted/authourised purpose is the 'primary' purpouse then decision is not ultra vires (ulawful)
R v ILEA ex p Westminister Cuty council
proposed text 'was the authourity pursing an unauthourised purpose, which materially influenced the making of its decision?' - two texts not easy to reconcile
taking accoutn of irrelevant conciderations / failing to take account of revelevant conciderations
Roberts v Hopwood 142
errors of law / errors of fact
anisminic ltd v foregin compensation commission
Irrationality / wednesbury principle
associated provincial picture house btd v Wednesbury Corp
test laid down by Lord Greene MR: whether, having regard to releveant considerations only, the decision-maker came to a concl so unreasonable that no reasonable authourity could ever have come to it
post-wednesbury developments -
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service
lord diplock sated decision need to be 'so outrageous in its definace of logic, or of accepted moral standards, that no sensible person could have arrived at it
requires proof of very high degree of unreasoableness - concerns that ruling on part of irrationality will open courts up to accusations of judging the merits of a decision rather than decision was arrived at unlawfully
R (on application of DSD and others) v Parloe Board
- decision to release John Worboys, Black cab rapist on parole. court held irrational for parole board not to undertake further inquiry bc he'd admitted to 12 offenses but was accused of 80
procedural grounds 'procedurally ultra vires'
rules of natural justice
against bias
fair hearing
define