Judicial Review - 1992

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 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 10 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO (1992) 5 Admin LR 785; [1993] ALR 785
1992 CA Neil LJ	Employment, Human Rights, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	Neill LJ explained article 8 of the Convention in the light of Brind: "(1) Article 10 is not part of English domestic law. It is therefore not necessary for the Minister when exercising an administrative decision conferred on him by Parliament to exercise that discretion in accordance with the provisions of Art.10. Nor will a court when reviewing the decision of the Minister interfere with it on the ground that he did not have regard to the provisions of Art.10 . . (2) Nevertheless, where fundamental human rights including freedom of expression are being restricted the Minister will need to show that there is an important competing public interest which is sufficient to justify the restriction. (3) The primary judgment as to whether the competing public interest justifies the particular restriction is for the Minister. The court is only entitled to exercise a secondary judgment by asking whether a reasonable Minister, on the material before him, could reasonably make that primary judgment . . (4) . . As the law stands at present it seems to me to be clear that though the Minister is required to justify the restriction imposed by reference to an important and sufficient competing public interest the court, when reviewing the Minister's decision is not entitled (to use Lord Lowry's phrase) to lower 'the threshold of unreasonableness.'"
	European Convention on Human Rights 8

Regina -v- Department of Transport, ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd (1992) 4 Admin LR 121
1992 Purchas LJ	Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	In a judicial review application, the question of standing falls to be considered again in deciding whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief: "The court must ... review at [the substantive] stage the question of sufficiency of interest and exercise its discretion accordingly. Whether this is properly called an investigation of locus standi or the exercise of discretion whether to grant [a remedy] is probably a semantic distinction without a difference. Personally I would prefer to restrict the use of the expression locus standi to the threshold exercise and to describe the decision at the ultimate stage as an exercise of discretion not to grant [a remedy] because the [claimant] has not established that he had been or was sufficiently affected."

Regina -v- Rochdale MBC ex parte Schemet (1992) 91 LGR 425
1992 Roch J	Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	In a proper case the court may permit a challenge to a decision which is months out of time.

Regina -v- Chief Constable, ex parte McKenna [1992] NI 116
1992	Northern Ireland, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	A detained person challenged the police handling of his case by way of judicial review.

Regina -v- Durham County Council, ex parte Robinson Times, 31 January 1992
31 Jan 1992 Pill J	Administrative, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the local authority to terminate his stallholder's licence. The parties had agreed that a sufficient element of public law was involved to give the court jurisdiction to review the decision. Held: It was not open to the parties to create jursidiction for the court. No sufficient element of public law was involved and a review was refused.

Roy -v- Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624; [1992] 7 CL 474; [1992] 2 WLR 239; [1991] UKHL 8
6 Feb 1992 HL	Judicial Review, Health Professions	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The respondent had withheld part of the plaintiff's GP payments saying that he had failed to devote himself full time to his practice. The plaintiff sued, and the defendant sought to strike out his application, saying that his application had to be by way of public law action through a judicial review. Held: The fact that the defendant's decision was a public law act did not prevent the plaintiff pursuing his rights in private law and that could be by way of ordinary action. The plaintiff had a relationship with the committee which established private law rights. The rule of procedural exclusivity does not apply where a defendant in a civil case simply seeks to defend himself by questioning the validity of a public law decision.
	Link[s] omitted

Payabi and Another -v- Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another [1992] 1 QB 907
1 Apr 1992 QBD Hobhouse J	Judicial Review, Limitation	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: "But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is implicitly (but inelegantly) giving effect to the first alternative, (a), in section 35(6). The result is that the rule relevant to the present case, Ord 20. r. 5, must be construed as being made under the general power to regulate procedure and under the more specific power given for the purposes of that Act by section 35 of the Act of 1980."
	Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986 - Limitation Act 1980 35(6)

Regina -v- Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina -v- Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page [1993] AC 682; [1992] UKHL 12
3 Dec 1992 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson	Education, Judicial Review, Employment	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. The House considered the nature and purpose of the system of judicial review: "The fundamental principle [of judicial review] is that the courts will intervene to ensure that the powers of public decision-making bodies are exercised lawfully. In all cases . . this intervention . . is based on the proposition that such powers have been conferred on the decision-maker on the underlying assumption that the powers are to be exercised only within the jurisdiction conferred, in accordance with fair procedures and, in a Wednesbury sense . . reasonably. If the decision-maker exercises his powers outside the jurisdiction conferred, in a manner which is procedurally irregular or is Wednesbury unreasonable, he is acting ultra vires his powers and therefore unlawfully." The House discarded the distinction between error of law within and outwith jurisdiction.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1289
9 Dec 1992 QBD Laws J	Judicial Review, Media, Human Rights	1 Citers
	An injunction was not granted to restrain the publication of a decision of the ASA pending the result of a challenge by way of Judicial Review. There is a general principle in our law that the expression of opinion and the conveyance of information will not be restrained by the courts save on pressing grounds. Freedom of expression is as much a sinew of the common law as it is of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Regina v Tottenham Magistrates Court ex parte Gleaves CO/2253/90; unreported 18 December 1992
18 Dec 1992 Admn Evans LJ and Otton J	Litigation Practice, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	An application for permission to bring judicial review and the judicial review proceedings themselves (whether in a civil or criminal cause or matter) are all civil proceedings and are caught by a civil proceedings order against the applicant. Evans LJ concluded that all proceedings under RSC Order 53 were civil proceedings: "The matter can be tested in this way. So far as these proceedings are concerned, that is to say, Mr Gleaves' application for judicial review . . there is no prosecutor and there is no defendant. Indeed . . the intended defendant in the Magistrates Court is not necessarily a party to these proceedings. This is an application by Mr Gleaves and the respondent is the Tottenham Magistrates Court. These are civil proceedings. Mr Gleaves seeks to invoke the powers of the civil courts admittedly for the purposes, as he sees them, of the criminal proceedings which he seeks to institute in the magistrates court but does not alter the fact in my view that he is invoking the powers of the civil court and that an application under O 53 at all its stages, even when the application relates to a criminal cause or matter, is nevertheless properly to be regarded as a civil proceeding."