Administrative - 1849- 1899

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Harrison -v- Bush (1855) 5 E & B 344
1855	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	The office of Secretary of State is in theory one and indivisible.

Jenkins -v- Gaisford, Re Jenkins (deceased)'s goods (1863)
1863 ChD	Wills and Probate, Administrative
	The testator had become infirm and unable to sign his name. He had made a stamp which reproduced his signature. He used it to execute his will. The will was challenged. Held: The will had been validly executed. The requirement of the Act could be fulfilled by somebody else executing a document on the direction of the testator, and therefore was equally fulfilled in this case.
	Statute References omitted

Gardner -v- London Chatham and Dover Railway Co (No 1) (1867) LR 2 Ch App 201
1867 Cairns LJ	Administrative, Insolvency	Casemap 1 Citers
	When Parliament expressly confers powers and imposes duties and responsibilities of an important kind upon a particular body, it is, as he put it, improper for the court by the appointment of a manager . . . itself to assume those powers and duties. Cairns LJ: "When the court appoints a manager of a business or undertaking, it in effect assumes the management into its own hands; for the manager is the servant or officer of the court, and upon any question arising as to the character and details of the management, it is the court which must direct and decide."

Bell -v- Kennedy (1868) LR 1 Sc & Div 307
1868 Lord Westbury, Lord Cairns	Administrative, Family	Casemap 1 Citers
	A domicile of choice in a country is been acquired immediately upon the person's arrival in that country. Lord Cairns, having held that it was unnecessary for him to examine the various definitions that have been given of the term "domicile", held that the question to be considered was in substance whether the appellant: "had determined to make, and had made, Scotland his home, with the intention of establishing himself and his family there, and ending his days in that country?"

Julius -v- Lord Bishop of Oxford and Another [1880] UKHL 1; (1880) 5 AC 214
23 Mar 1880 HL Lord Selborne, Lord Penzance	Administrative, Ecclesiastical	Casemap 1 Citers
	A statute enacted that with regard to certain charges against any Clerk in Holy Orders it "shall be lawful" for the Bishop of the diocese "on the application of any party complaining thereof" to issue a commission for enquiry. Held: The words " it shall be lawful" merely conferred a power, not a duty. Lord Cairns said: "But there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person on whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so." and the cases decided "that where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised, and the Court will require it to be exercised." Lord Penzance said that the true question was whether regard being had to the person enabled, to the subject matter, to the general objects of the statute and to the person or class of persons for whose benefit the power was intended to be conferred, the words do or do not create a duty. Lord Selborne said that the question was whether it could be shown from any particular words in the Act or from the general scope and objects of the statute that there was a duty. Lord Blackburn said: "though giving a power is prima facie merely enabling the donee to act, and so may not inaccurately be said to be equivalent to saying he may act, yet if the object of giving the power is to enable the donee to effectuate a right, then it is the duty of the donee of the power to exercise the power when those who have the right call upon him so to do. And this is equally the case where the power is given by the word 'may', if the object be clear."
	Link[s] omitted

Forbes -v- Underwood (1886) 13 R 465
1886	Scotland, Administrative, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session was used to compel an arbiter to proceed with an arbitration.

Gilbert -v- Corporation of Trinity House [1886] 17 QBD 795
1886	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court first gave birth to the concept of an 'emanation of the state'

Nutton -v- Wilson (1889) 22 QBD 744
1889 Lindley LJ	Crime, Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	Lindley LJ spoke of a statue intended to prevent civil servants dling on behalf of their employers with companies in which they had an interest: "The object obviously was to prevent the conflict between interest and duty that might otherwise inevitably arise".

Sharp -v- Wakefield [1891] AC 173
1891 HL Lord Halsbury LC	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	Lord Halsbury LC: "……discretion means, when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that that discretion is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion:….according to law, and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself."

Municipal Corporation of the City of Toronto -v- Virgo [1896] AC 88
1896 PC	Administrative	1 Citers
	A power to regulate does not include a power to prohibit.

Regina -v- Guardians of Lewisham Union [1897] 1 QB 498
1897	Administrative

Regina -v- Cotham [1898] 1 QB 802
1898	Litigation Practice, Administrative
	To obtain an order of mandamus, the applicant must show that he has a sufficient interest.

Kruse -v- Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91
1898 HCJ Lord Russell of Killowen CJ	Administrative, Crime, Scotland	Casemap 1 Citers
	A private citizen taxed with a criminal charge which is unfounded, because based upon an ultra vires byelaw or administrative decision, may challenge that decision. Where an authority which is clothed with statutory powers orders something to be done and accompanies this with some sanction or penalty for a failure to do it, this restricts the freedom of action by persons who are affected by it, who would otherwise be free to do as they pleased. Legislation of this kind ought to be supported if possible, looking to the character of the body which is legislating, the subject matter and the nature and extent of the authority which is given to the body to legislate in matters of this kind. Lord Russell of Killowen said as to powers exercised by private bodies: "the court should jealously watch the exercise of these powers, and guard against their unnecessary or unreasonable exercise to the public disadvantage, bearing in mind that their primary purpose is to make money for its shareholders".

Young -v- Waller [1898] AC 661
1898	Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	A legislature or (subject to any relevant legislation) a government may abolish a public office in the interests of good administration.