complaint – breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and fraud
Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express...
-
Upload
domenic-watts -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express...
![Page 1: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Judicial Review 3
• (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY
• Divided into two categories;
• (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements
• (b) Breach of Fair Procedure
• Note limits of the Court’s role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)
![Page 2: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Judicial Review 3
• (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements
• Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280.
• R v. Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168.
• R v. S of S for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164
• Consequences of failure to comply??
![Page 3: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Judicial Review 3• (b) Breach of Fair Procedure
• Two sub-categories
• (i) The Rule Against Bias
• NB : R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 per Lord Hewart CJ:
• "It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
![Page 4: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Judicial Review 3• NB no actual bias need be shown.
• R v. Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724.
• R v. Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139.
• R v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577
• Locobail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB 451
![Page 5: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Judicial Review 3• (ii) The Right to a Fair Hearing
• Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40
• What is a fair hearing?
• The person must know the case against him - Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322.
• He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case - R v. Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371
![Page 6: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Judicial Review 3
• Exceptions to this rule:
• Public Interest : R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528.
• National Security : R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All ER 319.
• Note the difference between the exceptions.
![Page 7: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Judicial Review 3• Should the person be legally represented? - Pitt v.
Greyhound Association of Great Britain [1968] 2 All ER 545, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251.
• Should the Public Body be required to give reasons for its decision? Payne v. Harris [1982] 2 All ER 842., R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,Doody v. S of S for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92
• Why shouldn’t public bodies give reasons for their decisions?
![Page 8: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Judicial Review 3
• PROPORTIONALITY
• R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 All ER 720
• R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 1 WLR 102.
• See now The effect of the Human Rights Act 1998.
![Page 9: Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022083009/5697bfef1a28abf838cb9ecb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Judicial Review 3
• The Human Rights Act 1998
• R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26
• Conclusion.