82 terms

PLAIR Cases

STUDY
PLAY

Terms in this set (...)

***Judicial Review Jurisdiction
Moss' Empires v Assessor for Glasgow, 1917 SC (HL) 1 at 6, per Lord Kinnear.
Moss' Empires v Assessor for Glasgow, 1917 SC (HL) 1 at 6, per Lord Kinnear.
"Wherever any inferior tribunal or any administrative body has exceeded the powers conferred on it by statute to the prejudice of the subject the jurisdiction of the Court [of Session] to set aside such excess of power as incompetent and illegal is not open to dispute."
***Grounds for Judicial Review
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service ('The GCHQ Case') [1985] AC 374 at 410 per Lord Diplock
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service ('The GCHQ Case') [1985] AC 374 at 410 per Lord Diplock
Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality'...
West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 per Lord Hope
There is 'no substantial difference' between English law and Scots law as to the grounds of review.
• "The sole purpose for which the supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised is to ensure that the person or body does not exceed or abuse that jurisdiction, power or authority or fail to do what the jurisdiction, power or authority requires".
• "The categories of what may amount to an excess or abuse of jurisdiction are not closed, and they are capable of being adapted in accordance with the development of administrative law".
West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 at 402 (Lord Hope)
"The principle is that where a particular matter has been entrusted to an inferior body or tribunal the Court of Session cannot substitute its own view for what that body or tribunal may decide; but it can nevertheless interfere in order to control any excess or abuse of power or failure to act within the limits of the jurisdiction which has been conferred".
***TERRITORIAL SCOPE
of JR
Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 47
Tehrani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 47
- Came to UK to seek asylum, takes time for it to be accepted, in the time when it was being processed. The body sent him to Glasgow until. It was then denied and then lodged an appeal. Sheffield lawyer went to Durham, refused the appeal and then tried again for London, and was refused and that final decision and then had to judicially reviewed. Could set aside decision from tribunal in London? COS said it does not have the power to do this because it was outside territory. Ter then went to the supreme court (HOL). The HOL reached opposite conclusion, as long as the petitioner had relation to Scotland then they could. Clarity what sufficient connection? Lord Hope set out 3 criteria...
Lord Hope Criteria
Factors that the House of Lords considered in this case included: (1) the petitioner was resident in Scotland, (2) the "harmful effects" were likely to be felt in Scotland, and (3) the determination was made exercising a UK-wide jurisdiction.
The court that first seized the matter must exercise its jurisdiction to provide the remedy sought.
This is unless the respondent has taken a plea of forum non convenient. More fair for one of the parties to have it heard in a specific court.
***Standing
Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, Petitioners 1987 SLT 179
Rape Crisis Centre v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2000 SC 527
Axa
Sustainable Shetland v Scottish Ministers [2014] CSIH 60
Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, Petitioners 1987 SLT 179
Public interest group seeking to support the elderly, set out rules ot cold weather payments. If tempt reaches to certain point, the elderly and other people who are poor will be able to make heating costs. Wanted to challenge. Court said yes circular makes private rights, allows for benefit. Private law right that could be infringe and therefore have title.
Rape Crisis Centre v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2000 SC 527
Permission to enter UK, centre wanted to trump the decision, in the early 90s convicted of rape and the rules regulating who gets to enter were against this. Should not allowed Mike to come in. Couldn't prove that they had some private law right. They do not create private law right for some interest group and so in this case did not have standing.
Axa
Pre-Axa both 'title and interest to sue' was required.In AXA said the test was too high, it was too restrictive and so merged it with the test from England. Have to prove sufficient interest in the outcome of the case.
They didn't define however what to be in this test, the definition.
Sustainable Shetland v Scottish Ministers [2014] CSIH 60
Judicial review to build wind farms, wanted to challenge because they would harm. As the case went from the outer house to inner house, new organisation became called royal society for protection of birds and lodged for this and refused because the same argument was going on.
***Illegality
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service ('The GCHQ Case') [1985] AC 374 at 410 per Lord Diplock
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service ('The GCHQ Case') [1985] AC 374 at 410 per Lord Diplock
"By 'illegality' as a ground of 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".
***ILLEGALITY: Excess of Powers (Substantive ultra vires)
D & J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees 1915 SC (HL)
McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council 1983 SC 225
Bromley LBC v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768
D & J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees 1915 SC (HL)
Authority through statute on river tay for commercial purposes. One ferry for pleasure trips. Did not have the power to do this under the statue. Therefore the decision was set aside.
McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council 1983 SC 225
Under water Scotland act 1980, designated water authority for strathclyde and according to the statute had a duty to provide wholesome water. Council decided to add fluoride to the water to help with dental health. Mrs McColl acting as a puppet for arguing against this. Is it part of making the water wholesome or not, court reached that the meaning of wholesome was that the authority had the duty to provide water that wasn't poisoners. Didn't mean had the power to add anything to benefit.
Bromley LBC v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768
Example of overstepping powers. Facts, greater london council transport act 1969, duty to operate transport services for london. Council was labour dominated. Rivalry between council and government (conservatives). Council decided to decrease ticket prices by 25% included in election platform and so they decided to implement. However, this caused a whole in finances and to make up for it they increased the tax to make up for the cost. BLBC challenged the decision saying that they did not have the power to do this. Unduly increased the payment of the rates and therefore was acting in excess of their powers. Doesn't mean any election promises that they make allow them to go in excess of their powers. Fine line between what is legal and what policy that the council should follow, The gov abolished the council.
***ILLEGALITY: Error in Law
R v Home Secretary ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
National Aids Trust v NHS England [2016] EWHC 2005
R v Home Secretary ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407
2 young children murdered child. Targeted these murderers and what they did they organised petitions to ensure that they got the biggest penalties. HS to define what their minimum tariff would be, in setting this the HS did is that he did not have regard to the interest of the child offender. Act required him to have the best interest of the child offender. The HS interpreted that as not being binding. Set this as if the 2 were adults. Circumstance where HS committed an error in law as he couldn't do this. 2 children when to the ECtHR and challenged this under article 6, any penalty must be imposed by an independent tribunal by virtue of being executive and the HS was not one and part of that the law changed and the judges now do this.
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
No difference between jurisdiction and non and therefore any could be heard under judicial review.
National Aids Trust v NHS England [2016] EWHC 2005
Case that is still developing. NhS STARTING TESTING DRUG THAT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT EXPOSURE TO hiv AND GAVE IT TO VARIOUS SCHOOLS. After doing the trials successfully they stopped and argued that they did this because it wasn't in their powers to provide such medicine, local authority. Court looking at statue for NHS court reached that NHS England was in error of law that it did have the power to provide this drug.
***ILLEGALITY: Unlawful delegation
Ellis v Dubowski
Ellis v Dubowski
Authority that had the power to grant license to show films and they decided to ask other body whether the films were appropriate for public use. So they gave this power to the board if they think it is ok then that is fine. This decision was reduced because of unlawful delegation.
***ILLEGALITY: Unlawful Fettering
Sagnata Investments Limited v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614
R v Home Secretary, ex parte P and Q [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2002
Miss Behavin' Ltd v Belfast CC [2007] UKHL 19
Sagnata Investments Limited v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614
Had the power to give license for gambling and the authority said they would never. This decision unlawful.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte P and Q [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2002
Prisoners and just recent mothers. Special mother and baby units. And they would be allowed to stay with their children until they were 18 months old. These prisoners just about to reach 18 months but the service hadn't managed to find accommodation for the child. So the court said here when you adopt a policy cannot make it that rigid that you can never adapt to certain circumstances. Rule that comes from this case is that authorities are allowed to adopt policies as long as they are ready to depart from them based on the individual circumstances of the case.
Miss Behavin' Ltd v Belfast CC [2007] UKHL 19
certain circumstances, the adoption of a binding rule can be justified.
Establishment which is an adult shop, planning to open store in centre of Belfast. Council refused application, adoption of such a binding rule can be justified. Also human rights issue of right to property and freedom of expression.
***ILLEGALITY: Improper Purposes
Congreve v Home Office
Highland Regional Council v British Railways Board 1996 SLT 274
Congreve v Home Office
HO announced increase the fee for TV license quite substantially renewed earlier to prevent this increase and they did so by the 1,000. If didn't do this they would revoke. The court said they did so legally and they were paying the fee at the time and the fact that the minister wanted to bring more money wasn't a purpose for revoking all the licenses.
Highland Regional Council v British Railways Board 1996 SLT 274
"ghost trains" running on a line to avoid closure of the line and the accompanying consultation that would be required was an improper use of discretion
Want to get rid of specific train journey. If wanted to stop they would have to go through complicated process. So what they could do was prove that it made no money and times the train for when no one would use it and therefore prove the point. This was improper purpose, the change of the times was not for the benefit and therefore this was set aside.
***ILLEGALITY: Relevance
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407
R v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables [1998] AC 407
Home Secretary had also taken account of irrelevant considerations, in this case, public petitions about the length of detention that was appropriate.
Committed an error in law as well* see lecture before. Petition happening at the time, focusing on the background. Demand the HS he imposed the strictest of tariffs. A lot of signatures, HS imposing this tariff, given due consideration. The law did not include petitions, taking irrelevant considerations and therefore decision could be set aside on the basis of illegality.
R v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20
The Somerset council, passed decision that they would ban deer hunting in the area. But they justified this decision based on ethical and moral arguments. Saying it is unethical, justifications more based on this. This according to the court, was an irrelevant considerations, the authorities given power to make these decisions should make them on the basis of the law, shouldn't use their own understanding of morality. If statute said that they could then that's fine however not the case. Can be strike down due to irrelevant considerations. (also unlawful fettering, improper purposes, Irrationality)
Breach of Convention (ECHR) Rights
R (North Cyprus Tourism Centre) v Transport for London [2005] ACD 101
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15; [2007] 1 AC 100
Miss Behavin' Ltd v Belfast CC
R (North Cyprus Tourism Centre) v Transport for London [2005] ACD 101
Wanted to buy ads on a transport (buses, underground) to promote tourism. Refused based on the fact that the UK gov didn't recognise Cyprus as a state, and so the authority said if northern Cyprus was used it was cause offence and would seem as though the UK was supporting the idea that northern Cyprus was a state and therefore no opportunity, Centre relied on article 10, freedom of expression. The court agreed with this and said it was disproportionate to band all advert
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15; [2007] 1 AC 100
wearing of the jilbab. Applicant argued that this constituted an infringement of Article 9 ECHR, that protects freedom of conscience and religion. Petitioner was a student in the school, parents passed away, guardianship taken over by someone different segment of religion and advocated a different dress. School asked her to leave and said can't come back unless wear uniform. Controversial issue, should courts be the one to resolve them? Or should gov by ultimate decision maker. Sometimes stand back and let public authority to be ultimate decision maker. Lord Bingham, should defer to the judgment of the school. School should be the one to decide what best serves its purpose. In this case the school was not being irrational, LB said no violation, it is the school that should make the determination. (judgments in lecture notes)
Miss Behavin' Ltd v Belfast CC
Argue that the decision maker should have taken into account human rights and because they didn't, the decision was flawed and therefore should be set aside. Courts not convinced. When it comes to HR there is an exception.

"The role of the court in human rights adjudication is quite different from the role of the court in an ordinary judicial review of administrative action. In human rights adjudication, the court is concerned with whether the human rights of the claimant have in fact been infringed, not with whether the administrative decision-maker properly took them into account."
BH
Procedural Impropriety
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case)
Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL)
CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case)
(Lord Diplock)

• Breach of an express provision: Courts can ensure that prescribed procedural standards have been observed.

• Breach of an implied provision or other common law standard: Even if not expressly mentioned in the power-conferring act, the common law may then "supply the omission of the legislature" and require decision-makers to also abide by the common law rules of 'natural justice'.
Breach of an express provision
Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL)
Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL)
Petitioner was not informed that a right of appeal was available to him. The was enough to render the decision a nullity. Decision set aside because authorities didn't mention that appeal was available to them.
Natural justice and fairness: Article 6 ECHR(PI)
R (on the application of Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
R (on the application of Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
M individual alleged practice in extraordinary rendition; certain individuals kidnapped by CIA, countries not party to human rights and be subjected to torture to give information. HRA doesn't allow torture in any situation. M released didn't find adequate information. Said that the UK security systems were working with the CIA in order for him to be tortured. Requesting 9information to show that they were involved in this. The court reached the decision, circulated drafted judgment to 2 sides involved. The gov rep contracted judge and asked him to redact certain paragraph for national security reasons, didn't involve other party in the communication. Breach of natural duty and fairness. Communicate to judge then have to be aware. Example of common law standards natural justice and fairness.
Legitimate expectation (PI)
the GCHQ case (1983)
McInnes v Onslow Fane (1978)
Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)
Walsh v Secretary of State for Scotland, 1990 SLT 526
Rooney v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, 1997 SLT 1261
the GCHQ case (1983)
Gov (thatcher) decided no longer allow members of the security services to join trade unions. Gover communication headquarters challenged decision on the grounds the gov did not consult before taking away the right. And they argued because the gov always consulted with the workers, this had generated legitimate expectation and they did not follow thr0ough so it was PI. Court accepted that LE had been, argued overridden by national security concerns.
McInnes v Onslow Fane (1978)
Every year it was renewed until it was taken away, expectation that if something has been happening year after year then you would expect that to have been happening.
Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)
Enter hong kong illegal, immigration authority, before anyone was deported get a chance to a fair hearing, tell their side of the story, the petitioner did not get that chance, generated LE which did not follow through and therefore there was PI.
Walsh v Secretary of State for Scotland, 1990 SLT 526
A legitimate expectation to be released from prison on the originally appointed date of release
Rooney v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, 1997 SLT 1261
A legitimate expectation that procedural guidelines issued by the Secretary of State would be followed
Natural Justice and fairness (PI)
Irvine v Royal Burgess Golfing Society of Edinburgh (2004)
Irvine v Royal Burgess Golfing Society of Edinburgh (2004)
Exclusive, brought friends along, took to golf course, wearing the wrong shoes. So they told him to wear the proper shoes and he left and wore the proper shoes and came back and didn't have a golf bag, and for these reasons the board members saw this and expelled from the golf club, didn't get his chance to have his say, didn't know the reasons etc. Challenged the decision of the private bodies.
Bias
Porter v Magill [2002]
Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004]
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451:
Porter v Magill [2002]
"The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased"
Davidson v Scottish Ministers [2004]
a judge was disqualified for being involved in the passage of the Act of Parliament under review, whilst he served as Lord Advocate.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451:
"Everything will depend on the facts...we cannot, however, conceive of circumstances in which an objection could be soundly based on the religion, ethnic or national origin, gender, age, class, means or sexual orientation of the judge. Nor, at any rate ordinarily, could an objection be soundly based on the judge's social or educational or service or employment background or history, nor that of any member of the judge's family; or previous political associations; or membership of social or sporting or charitable bodies; or Masonic associations...or extra-curricular utterances...or previous receipt of instructions to act for or against any party..."
Irrationality
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
Short v Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] AC 240
R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 51
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay [1987]
Gerry Cottle's Circus v City of Edinburgh District Council 1990 SLT 235
La Belle Angele v City of Edinburgh Licensing Board, 2001 SLT 801
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
- Cinemas be allowed to open on Sundays but they set requirement but won't allow children up unil 15 to be admitted. Challenged the decisions, precedes GCHQ case, get definition..."Although the local authority have kept within the four corners of the matters which they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it"
...important thing to remember in irrationality the authority is acting within its powers. But hat decision is unreasonable. Authority had not made unreasonable decision.
Short v Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66.
Teacher who was fired because she got married and the authority decided if married then you can't house wife duties and teaching duties at same time. If married husband will take care of you. Court said not really touching on substance, protecting parliament. When granting the authority did not grant to make unreasonable decisions. If the decision is so clearly founded on alien and irrelevant grounds then the court can reduce it under the presumption that Parliament has not sanctioned unreasonable decisions. This case raises questions because it was not found irrational. Which tells a lot about irrationality.
What is irrational or not? Where do they come up? is it society that tells them? Own moral values?
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council [1986] AC 240
Inappropriate for the court to intervene in a matter of public financial administration on the ground that it was unreasonable unless the decision could be shown to be one taken in bad faith or improper motives. Political judgment by the secretary of state was not found to be irrational.
R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 51
Member of royal air force and call was made to superior that she was a lesbian, the officials questioned and for that reason she could not be a member. Court distinguished importance of the case to the previous cases, fundamental issue will lose income etc. Will look in much greater detail to determine whether it is reasonable or not. In this case didn't find it irrational.

Policy issues will not interfere that much but in these types will look further.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay [1987]
Illegal immigrant being deported, not make case to stay, clear that if he was sent back then he would be murdered, right to life at stake. Sec of state for HD, irrational. Some circumstances the court will scrutinise much more, not a light touch review. Anxious scrutiny. Found decision irrational.
Gerry Cottle's Circus v City of Edinburgh District Council 1990 SLT 235
District council not any live animals used due to moral concerns. Example where the court relied on irrationality, many other grounds useful. The court held that the council was acting beyond its powers by refusing an application based solely on a view that the concept of performing animals was wrong.
La Belle Angele v City of Edinburgh Licensing Board, 2001 SLT 801
Extension of opening hours, open till 3am on Saturdays, at the same time working for advertising agency, starting sign posting ads all over edin, unlawful. The authority said because fly posting all of edin, not allow to open till 3am, only till 2am. Found irrational. Shorter extension of hours could not be justified by flyposting problem; closely related to "irrelevant considerations".
Proportionality
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Brind
R (on the application of Daly) v Home Secretary [2001]
R (Pro-Life Alliance) v BBC [2003] UKHL 23, [2004]
Somerville v Scottish Ministers, 2008 SC (HL)
Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19
Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweawlth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69 per Lord Neuberger
Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Brind
Home sec created rule that was binding on the bbc and it said that the bbc should not broadcast any speeches from individuals who are members of terrorist groups. Freedom of expression, convention does nor form part of UK law at this time. And cannot adopt test of prop that the ECHR does. Law lords in the Brian case, merits review, didn't want to go there. In this case prop is not a tool to challenge decisions.
The House of Lords declined to adopt a test of proportionality going beyond that of irrationality. Lord Ackner argued that a proportionality test would inevitably require the court to make "an inquiry into and a decision upon the merits [...] which would amount to a wrongful usurpation of powers" by courts.
R (on the application of Daly) v Home Secretary [2001]
Prisoner cell was searched and letters were read and violation to right to privacy. Lord Steyn: prop and irrationality distinguished. Important because 11 years after it accepted that prop could be used in UK courts but exclusively to convention grounds.
"First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations. Thirdly, even the heightened scrutiny test developed in R v Ministry of Defence, Ex p Smith is not necessarily appropriate to the protection of human rights.
R (Pro-Life Alliance) v BBC [2003] UKHL 23, [2004]
Party that wanted to promote anti-abortion agenda, graphic video and want to show this and get in line with views, said video would offend and would not broadcast. Challenged on freedom of expression. Court troubled that it should have the option to use proportionality. A refusal of the BBC to broadcast an election campaign video that contained graphic images of abortions was not found to be a disproportionate restriction of freedom of expression. Lord Walker reasonable test was less complicated
Somerville v Scottish Ministers, 2008 SC (HL)
It was not appropriate to reach a conclusion on proportionality as a common law ground.
Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20
Times journalist raised concerns about George Galloway, ran charity he had. He knew that the commission investigated, wanted to gain access to info on how it was working. Started to discuss what would be the appropriate ground of review, I or P, distinction is not important, they said that both of these grounds are different models of applying the same concept and that concept is that public authorities should not act arbitral. Does it case prejudice to interest, perhaps distinction doesn't matter.
"Whatever the context, the court deploying them must be aware that they overlap potentially and that the intensity with which they are applied is heavily dependent on the context".
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19
Argued that prop it would be available for JR not only on conventional circumstances. per Lord Mance: A correspondingly strict standard of judicial review must apply to any exercise of the power contained in section 40(2), and the tool of proportionality is one which would, in my view and for the reasons explained in Kennedy ..., be both available and valuable for the purposes of such a review.
• Suggestion that judges were setting the stage to rework the principles of substantive review.
Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweawlth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69 per Lord Neuberger:
Time to set aside irrationality and use proportionality.
"The time has come to reconsider the basis on which the courts review decisions of the executive, and in particular that the traditional Wednesbury rationality basis for challenging executive decisions should be replaced by a more structured and principled challenge based on proportionality".
Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016
Confusion about how these 2 interact, in future case sit and think about this.
per Lord Carnwath: "It is to be hoped that an opportunity can be found in the near future for an authoritative review in this court of the judicial and academic learning on the issue, including relevant comparative material from other common law jurisdictions. Such a review might aim for rather more structured guidance for the lower courts".
Boddington v British Transport Police
A defendant in criminal proceedings is entitled to contend that subordinate legislation or an administrative act made under it was ultra vires
DPP v Hutchinson
What happens if one provision of the SI is declared invalid? 'Principle of severability' applies. If the other sections can apply without the one that was found invalid, then they will continue to apply.
Ahmed v HM Treasury
Apparently wide powers to give effect to resolutions of the UN Security Council by Order in Council. But Parent Act did not clearly authorise interference with fundamental rights ('principle of legality'; 'clear words principle')
Public Law Project v Lord Chancellor
Henry VIII power did not extend to introducing a residence test for civil legal aid - draft affirmative order challenged before it was voted on
Javed v Home Secretary
Wednesday unreasonable for order to designate Pakistan as country where there was no serious risk of persecution. Immaterial that order had been affirmed by both Houses of Parliament
R v SoS for Social Services, ex parte AMA
Failure to consult local authorities - mandatory requirement, but regulations not quashed
Davies v Scottish Commission for Regulation of Care
Difficulties of "ancillary" provisions. Supreme Court took pragmatic interpretation of provisions transitioning care regulator