Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
42
|
|
|
Grounds of review established by Lord Diplock in CCSU case
|
1. Illegality
2. Irrationality 3. Procedural Impropriety |
|
|
Public authorities can't act without legal authority
|
R v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC, ex p McCarthy and Stone
|
|
|
General Rule that decision making powers given by Parl can't be 'sub-delegated'
|
R v DPP, ex p AFDCS
|
|
|
Exceptions to general 'sub-delegation' rule
|
1. The 'Carltona' Principle
2. Local Gov't Act 1972, s101 |
|
|
The 'Carltona' Principle
|
Allowed to delegate down freely within own department.
|
|
|
Local Gov't Act 1972, s101
|
Local authorities can delegate to committees if formal resolutions are used.
|
|
|
Public Bodies can't 'fetter' a discretionary power, this occurs by:
|
1. Acting under the dictation of another
2. Formulating a general policy as to the exercise of a discretion. |
|
|
Acting under the dictation of another case
|
Lavender and Sons Ltd v Minister of housing and Local Gov't
|
|
|
Formulating general policy case
|
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
|
|
|
Public bodies can't use power for an improper or unauthorised purpose
|
Congreve v Home Office
|
|
|
Two Dual Purpose Tests
|
1. Westminster Corp v LNWR
2. R v ILEA |
|
|
Dual purposes ok if allowable purpose is primary
|
Westminster Corp v LNWR
|
|
|
Dual purposes not ok if authority was pursuing an unauth purpose that materially influenced their decision
|
R v ILEA
|
|
|
Public Authority must not take irrelevant considerations into account nor fail to account for relevant considerations
|
Roberts v Hopwood
|
|
|
Errors of law will always be susceptible to JR
|
Anisminic Ltd v FCC
|
|
|
Only some errors of fact reviewable known as jurisdictional errors of fact and have to go to the root of the authority's capacity to act.
|
ex p Khawaja
|
|
|
To est irrationality decision or policy should be beyond range of 'resonable responses open to DM'
|
R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith
|
|
|
Irrationality- decision that no reasonable public auth could arrive at
|
Wednesbury
|
|
|
Irrationality is 'outrageous in its defiance of logic'
|
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service
|
|
|
Procedural Impropriety aspects
|
1. 'Procedurally Ultra Vires'
2. Procedural Fairness |
|
|
Rules Against Bias include
|
Direct and indirect interests
|
|
|
An interest which may lead to financial gain falls into the direct interest category
|
Dimes v Grand Junction Coral Proprietors
|
|
|
Extended direct interest to where DM is involved in promoting the same cause as a party to the case
|
ex p Pinochet Ugarte
|
|
|
Established Indirect Bias
|
Magill v Porter
|
|
|
Indirect Bias Test
|
Would a fair-minded and impartial observer conclude that there had been a real possibility of bias
|
|
|
A duty of DMs to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides (Right to a Fair Hearing)
|
Board of Education v Rice
|
|
|
Decending scale of expectation of amount of hearing and case
|
1. Forfeiture cases
2. Legitimate expectation 3. Application cases McInnes v Onslow |
|
|
Person should know case against them and have the right to reply
|
Fairmount Investments v Sec of State for Environment
|
|
|
No general public auth duty to give reasons behind decisions
|
Hason case
|
|
|
Exception to Hason general rule when decision 'cries out for explanation'
|
ex p Cunningham
|
|
|
Exception to Hason when impact on rights serious and public interest requires the reasoning be given
|
ex p Doody
|
|
|
Discretion to whether cross-examination allowed in hearing
|
ex p St Germain (No 2)
|
|
|
Procedural Ultra Vires aspects
|
Mandatory or Directory Requirements
|
|
|
Mandatory Requirements
|
Bradbury v London Borough of Enfield
|
|
|
Directory Requirements
|
Coney v Choyce
|
