Judicial Review - 2000

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 30 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

Rape Crisis Centre -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department 2000 SC 527
2000 Lord Ordinary (Lord Clarke)	Judicial Review, Scotland	Casemap 1 Citers
	The petitioner sought judicial review of a decision to allow the boxer Mike Tyson to visit the UK. Held: The Immigration Rules conferred no express or implied rights on third parties such as the petitioners. A review was refused. Lord Clarke the issues of title and interest to sue on a broad and flexible basis: saying: "Two things require, in my judgment, to be noted about that dictum. In the first place (Lord Dunedin) was recognising the difficulty and, indeed, inappropriateness of seeking to provide any fixed definition of the concept of title to sue. Secondly, the dictum, though it has stood the test of time, was uttered in times well before the huge development of administrative law and judicial review that has occurred in recent decades. The key elements, therefore, of the dictum, namely 'some legal relation which gives him some right which the person against whom he raises the action either infringes or denies' must be given a content and a meaning which keep them abreast with those developments. Where questions of title to sue arise in a situation where a Minister is exercising a function, the search is, in my opinion, to be focussed on the scope and the purpose of the statute or other measure under which he is purporting to act to discover who, in law, has the right to challenge an act or decision taken by the Minister in the exercise of that function if that act or decision is not to his liking. The fact that the act or decision is not to his liking does not per se qualify a person with title to challenge. Some legislation and its related measures, having regard to their purpose and function, will, no doubt, confer a right of challenge on individual members of the public as a whole, but it is a fallacy to suppose that because of the public interest in ministers acting lawfully and fairly that public interest by itself confers on every member of the public a right to challenge a Minister's act or decision. Matters must go further, in my judgment, and the individual or body seeking to challenge the Minister's act or decision must show that, having regard to the scope and purpose of the legislation, or measures, under which the act is performed, or the decision is made, he or they have had such a right conferred upon them by law, either expressly or impliedly." And: "That approach to questions of title to sue was applied by Lord Clyde in the case of Scottish Old People's Welfare Council, Petitioners [1987 SLT 179] where his Lordship, under reference to the supplementary benefits legislation, with which he was concerned in that case, said at p. 185: 'The purpose of the legislation is to make state benefit available to any member of the public who may qualify for it and it is not unreasonable to see the duty of the proper administration of the legislation as a duty owed to the public. On that basis it can be concluded that any member of the public has at least a title to sue and the only question remaining would be whether he has an interest to do so.'" "In my judgment the petitioners were in no different a position from any other member of the public in that respect. The scope and function of the legislation, and the rules, did not provide a legal nexus between the petitioners and the Secretary of State when he was exercising his discretion under them."

Sunworld Limited -v- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 2102; [1999] EWHC QB 271
2000 QBD Simon Brown LJ, Turner J	Litigation Practice, Judicial Review	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The company faced a prosecution under the 1968 Act, in respect of a brochure. On conviction, the company asked the Crown Court to state a case for the Divisional Court. The Recorder refused as to two points, saying that they were decisions of fact not law. The company sought judicial review for mandamus to require the case to be stated. Held: The court heard an appeal which should have been brought by way of judicial review. The court gave the necessary directions, and proceeded to treat the hearing as such an application. Simon Brown LJ suggested the appropriate practice: "(1) Where a court, be it a Magistrates' Court or a Crown Court, refuses to state a case, then the party aggrieved should without delay apply for permission to bring judicial review, either (a) to mandamus it to state a case and/or (b) to quash the order sought to be appealed. (2) If the court below has already (a) given a reasoned judgment containing all the necessary findings of fact and/or (b) explained its refusal to state a case in terms which clearly raise the true point of law in issue, then the correct course would be for the single judge, assuming he thinks the point properly arguable, to grant permission for judicial review which directly challenges the order complained of, thereby avoiding the need for a case to be stated at all. (3) If the court below has stated a case but in respect of some questions only, as here, the better course may be to apply for the case stated to be amended unless again, as here, there already exists sufficient material to enable the Divisional Court to deal with all the properly arguable issues in the case. (4) This court for its part will adopt whatever course involves the fewest additional steps and the least expense, delay and duplication of proceedings. Whether, as in Ex Parte Levy, it will be possible to proceed at once to a substantive determination of the issues must inevitably depend in part upon whether all interested parties are represented and prepared, and in part upon the availability of court time."
	Trade Descriptions Act 1968 14(1)(b)(ii)
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Thomson Holidays Ltd
12 Jan 2000 CA	Judicial Review, Commercial, Consumer
	Regulations made by the Secretary of State which purported to restrict the range of contracts which could be made between tour operators and travel agents were beyond his powers. The ability to make such regulations followed directly only from a report prepared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and in this case the regulations went beyond the findings, and were to that extent ultra vires.
	Fair Trading Act 1973 56(2) - Foreign Package Holidays (Tour Operators and Travel Agents) Order 1998 (1998 N0 1945)

Regina -v- Muntham House School, Ex Parte R
26 Jan 2000 QBD	Judicial Review, Education
	It was not possible to judicially review the admission policy of a private school. It was a private body, even though it received the bulk of its income from local authorities, and it was otherwise subject to strict statutory control.

Hardie -v- Edinburgh City Council
16 Feb 2000 OHCS	Judicial Review, Employment, Education
	The question of whether a supply teacher had properly been removed form the Local Authority's list, was a matter with public law issues, and was capable of being subject to a judicial review. The authority was fulfilling a statutory duty to provide adequate education, even there was no express duty to maintain such a list. In this case also there was no continuing private contractual relationship between the applicant and the authority.

Regina -v- Regional Office of the Employment Tribunals (London North), Ex p Sojorin (unreported) Unreported, 21 February 2000
21 Feb 2000 CA Sedley LJ	Employment, Judicial Review	Casemap
	The Employment Appeal Tribunal is immune from judicial review.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Shaw
16 Mar 2000 QBD	Criminal Sentencing, Judicial Review
	A prisoner was subject to a discretionary life imprisonment order. To try to accelerate his release he applied to take part in a program for the rehabilitation of sex offenders. Before that decision was made, he was reclassified as a psychopath, and then refused entry to the program. He sought to review that decision, because he had not been given opportunity to make representations about it. The decision was part of a continuing review of the prisoner, and the effect on his potential early release, whilst real, remained a secondary consequence.

Regina -v- North West Leicestershire District Council East Midlands International Airport Ltd ex parte Moses [2000] EWCA Civ 125
12 Apr 2000 CA	Judicial Review
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- North West Leicestershire District Council and Another, Ex Parte Moses
28 Apr 2000 CA	Planning, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites
	The authority granted approval of an extension of the airport runway in 1994, but on a later application required an environmental impact assessment. That was provided, and dealt with the impact of both extensions. The applicant sought judicial review of the first approval. He argued that the delay was overborne by the importance now attached to such procedures. Held: The application for review was refused. The considerable delay had allowed many millions of pounds to be spent, and further money would be spent taking down what had been built.
	Supreme Court Act 1981 31(6)

Regina -v- Servite Houses, London Borough of Wandsworth Council ex parte Louisa Laura Goldsmith, By Her Daughter and Litigation Friend Linda Goldsmith -v- Florence Nellie Chatting By Her Niece and Litigation Friend Marlene Turner [2000] EWHC Admin 338; [2001] LGR 55
12 May 2000 Admn Moses J	Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne [2000] EWHC Admin 342; [2001] 1 QB 330; [2000] Inquest LR 133; [2000] Po LR 172; [2001] HRLR 3; [2000] 3 WLR 463; [2000] EWHC 562 (QB); [2001] QB 330
17 May 2000 Admn Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Morison J	Crime, Constitutional, Police, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the Director not to prosecute anybody after the death of their brother in custody. Held: The Director of Public Prosecutions is answerable to the Attorney General and to no one else. While the power of judicial review is to be sparingly exercised, the standard of review should not be set too high, since judicial review is the only means by which the citizen can seek redress against a decision not to prosecute and if the test were too exacting an effective remedy would be denied. Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ said: "the power of review is one to be sparingly exercised. The reasons for this are clear. The primary decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is entrusted by Parliament to the Director as head of an independent, professional prosecuting service, answerable to the Attorney General in his role as guardian of the public interest, and to no-one else. It makes no difference that in practice the decision will ordinarily be taken by a senior member of the CPS, as it was here, and not by the Director personally. In any borderline case the decision may be one of acute difficulty, since while a defendant whom a jury would be likely to convict should properly be brought to justice and tried, a defendant whom a jury would be likely to acquit should not be subjected to the trauma inherent in a criminal trial. If, in a case such as the present, the Director's provisional decision is not to prosecute, that decision will be subject to review by Senior Treasury Counsel who will exercise an independent professional judgment. The Director and his officials (and Senior Treasury Counsel when consulted) will bring to their task of deciding whether to prosecute an experience and expertise which most courts called upon to review their decisions could not match. In most cases the decision will turn not on an analysis of the relevant legal principles but on the exercise of an informed judgment of how a case against a particular defendant, if brought, would be likely to fare in the context of a criminal trial before (in a serious case such as this) a jury. This exercise of judgment involves an assessment of the strength, by the end of the trial, of the evidence against the defendant and of the likely defences. It will often be impossible to stigmatise a judgment on such matters as wrong even if one disagrees with it. So the courts will not easily find that a decision not to prosecute is bad in law, on which basis alone the court is entitled to interfere. At the same time, the standard of review should not be set too high, since judicial review is the only means by which the citizen can seek redress against a decision not to prosecute and if the test were too exacting an effective remedy would be denied."
	Link[s] omitted

Steed -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 32; [2000] 3 All ER 226; [2000] 1 WLR 1169
26 May 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Woolf M.R. Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Millett	Administrative, Judicial Review	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant surrendered guns and ammunition under the 1997 Act, and was due to be compensated. His claim was not settled, and he commenced an action in the County Court for the sums claimed. The defendant denied any duty to pay up within a reasonable period, and asserted that any claim must be by way of judicial review. The defendant appealed and lost the case in the Court of Appeal, and appealed again. Held: It was possible for a citizen to claim by way of summons sums due to him after the confiscation of his handguns, where the delay became unreasonable. There was no need to begin such proceedings by judicial review where the issue was not so much a decision, but rather the failure to deliver a statutory requirement within a reasonable time. Payment for scheduled types of handguns could be made within 30 days, and for guns which required individual valuation, 60 days was reasonable.
	Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 - Firearms Act 1968 5
	Link[s] omitted

Asifa Saleem -v- Secretary of State for Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 186; [2001] 1 WLR 443
13 Jun 2000 CA Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Hale	Judicial Review, Immigration, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator's determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power to make rules, but the receipt of the determination was fundamental to the exercise of the rights under the Act. "There is an analogy here with the principles established under Article 6 of the ECHR. Immigration and asylum cases have not been held by the ECHR to be 'the determination of his civil rights and obligations' for the purpose of Article 6. Furthermore, Article 6 does not guarantee a right of appeal. But if the State establishes such a right it must ensure that people within its jurisdiction enjoy the fundamental guarantees in Article 6". The right of appeal to an independent appellate body was a fundamental or basic right akin to the right of unimpeded access to a court, an infringement of which must be either expressly authorised by or arise by necessary implication from an Act of Parliament.
	Immigration Act 1971 - Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 2070 - European Convention on Human Rights 6
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Director General of Electricity Supply, Ex Parte London Electricity Plc
13 Jun 2000 QBD	Administrative, Judicial Review
	Where the cost of upgrading supply systems in order to support large numbers of newly installed night storage systems fell to be apportioned, the test as to who should bear the burden was according to causation. An increase under twenty five per cent would not have occasioned a charge, and individually no one supply exceeded that amount, but the Director must look to the whole scheme. For one identifiable scheme it was unrealistic to break it back down into individual increments in demand.

Ryan and Another -v- Friction Dynamics Ltd and others
14 Jun 2000 ChD	Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
	When granting asset freezing orders in support of proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction the court should exercise caution, particularly under the section since the court would not have full knowledge of the issues. Where good grounds existed, and comity required a court to grant an order, the requirements of risk of dissipation, and of a good case must be met; an order might be made even if refused by a foreign court, and the existence of a world-wide order already did not prevent an English court granting a local order.
	Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25

Regina -v- Social Security Commissioner, Ex Parte Chamberlain [2000] EWHC Admin 364
7 Jul 2000 QBD Lightman J	Benefits, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	On an application to review an earlier incapacity benefit decision, the adjudicating officer or tribunal must first decide if a material change of circumstances existed since the decision, or whether the decision was founded upon some mistake. Only then should he pass on to question whether the 'all work' test is satisfied. The distinction between the two stages is clear and fundamental. Only if either limb of the first test applied could the second arise.
	Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 25, 171C
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Challenger
11 Jul 2000 QBD	Judicial Review, Human Rights
	An order was due to come into effect, and there was to be a public enquiry. The applicants sought review of the decision not to provide legal assistance for local objectors, on the grounds that it would prejudice their rights under the Human Rights Act, alleging breach of their rights to a fair trial by inequality of arms.. The court held that it would not be correct to allow a judicial review to give current effect to an Act which itself had not yet come into effect.

Regina -v- Vale of Glamorgan Council, Ex Parte Clements and Others
22 Aug 2000 CA	Judicial Review
	Although the Court of Appeal did not have power to hear a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review under the new rules where the application had been lodged in March 1999 before the new rules came into effect, the court could still apply the over-riding objective to allow it to hear the application as an appeal against the refusal f leave to appeal.
	Civil Procedure Rules 59.14(3)

Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Al-Fayed
7 Sep 2000 CA	Immigration, Judicial Review, Media
	A newspaper report written by a journalist quoting an unnamed if reliable source as to words spoken by the Secretary of State was insufficient to found the serious allegation that the Secretary had prejudged the applicant's application for naturalisation. The report suffered three defects. The source was unnamed, the reporter was himself quoting a party who had not heard the words himself, and the context in which the words had been spoken was unclear. Even had they been established, the words alleged would be insufficient to support the alleged pre-judgement.

Regina -v- South Bank University, Ex Parte Coggeran
19 Sep 2000 CA	Discrimination, Education, Judicial Review
	The applicant had been unable to complete her vocational course, after pregnancy related illness and absence. She was not allowed an extension of time to complete the course, and claimed she had been discriminated against. A judge granting a judicial review of the decision of the University was wrong to pronounce on the availability of county court proceedings. Nevertheless, the claim of sex discrimination against a University could not be brought in the employment tribunal, but must be in the County Court, which would have the powers of the High Court to make orders.

Regina -v- The National Lottery Commission ex parte Camelot Group Plc [2000] EWHC Admin 391
21 Sep 2000 Admn	Judicial Review, Licensing
	Where an authority was exercising a statutory power, that power must be exercised fairly. It was unacceptably unfair, in a licensing procedure, to continue negotiations with only one of two applicants where the applications of both had been rejected on the first round. Such a lack of even-handedness required clear and compelling justification which was absent in this case. Each applicant must be given the same opportunity to negotiate.
	Link[s] omitted

The Queen on the Application of Roda Guleed -v- the London Borough of Barnet [2000] EWHC Admin 5
9 Oct 2000 Admn	Judicial Review
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- B (Extradition: Abuse of Process)
17 Oct 2000 CACD	Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review
	An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.

Regina -v- Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) [2000] EWHC Admin 390
20 Oct 2000 Admn Jack Heatson QC	Education, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites
	The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome. Held: It was not open to a local authority to refuse to contribute to a child's travelling expenses to a school named in his statement, on the basis that he might attend another school nearby which was not named as appropriate in his statement of special educational needs, or to make attendance conditional upon an agreement regarding payment by the parents of travelling expenses. The council's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable since they had failed to consider the changes in the child's transport needs since the statement was made, and the parents' financial circumstances. Any bar to a judicial review operated against the parents not the child. "the matter must go back to the authority which must reconsider its decision giving proper consideration to all the changes of circumstances and not taking into account of its belief that G.A.'s needs could be met at a local school not named in the statement."
	Education Act 1996 324(5)(a)(ii), 19 509
	Link[s] omitted

Kingsley -v- The United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 288; [2000] ECHR 526; 35605/97; [2000] ECHR 528
7 Nov 2000 ECHR	Human Rights, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	The judicial review procedure which restricted the matters which it considered so as to exclude consideration of the allegation by the applicant that the tribunal whose decision he challenged had not been impartial, was insufficient to support the provision of a fair trial. This amounted to a lack of control over that tribunal by a judicial body with full jurisdiction. To satisfy that requirement, the reviewing court needed the power to set aside the decision and to order that it be reheard by such an impartial tribunal.
	Human Rights Act 1998 - European Convention on Human Rights
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Chief Constables of C and D, Ex Parte A
7 Nov 2000 QBD	Police, Judicial Review, Information
	The passing of sensitive personal information between one force and another was not a decision subject to obligations which made it subject to judicial review. Information falling short of convictions could properly be passed, and information passed between police forces rather than between police forces and other authorities was subject to lesser controls. There was no breach of the Data Protection Acts. With regard to the earlier Act the data was processed manually, and for both, the information passed was for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime. Disclosures outside the police force were required to pass the test of being to satisfy a pressing need.
	Data Protection Act 1984 - Data Protection Act 1998

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Eastaway [2000] UKHL 56; [2000] 1 WLR 2222; [2000] 1 All ER 27
8 Nov 2000 HL Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Millett	Litigation Practice, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where the Court of Appeal refused permission to apply for judicial review after a similar refusal by a judge, that decision was also, by implication, a refusal to grant permission to appeal against the judge's decision, and there was no scope for a further appeal to the House of Lords. It is not the role of the highest court to correct errors in the application of settled law.
	Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 6 - Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1A) 31(3) - Access to Justice Act 1999 54 - Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) 2000 (SI 221/2000) - Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 3
	[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Bolsover District Council, ex parte Pepper
15 Nov 2000 QBD	Local Government, Judicial Review
	If a decision by a local council to sell land was not automatically a public law decision susceptible to judicial review, then neither was a decision not to sell land. Such a decision by a local authority was by nature one of private law unless there existed some circumstance which brought in a specific public law element. In making the decision, the council was not performing a public function.

Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review [2000] EWCA Civ 321
13 Dec 2000 CA	Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Cites
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- The Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Allan Alexander Samaroo [2000] EWHC Admin 435
20 Dec 2000 Admn Thomas J	Immigration, Judicial Review	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted