CASE LAW

GCHQ (1985)

Facts:

• GCHQ staff banned from joining trade unions.

• Minister acted using prerogative powers without consulting staff.

• Staff challenged the decision via judicial review.

Held:

• Courts can review prerogative powers.

• National security concerns justified not consulting in this case.

Key Principles:

• Prerogative powers are subject to judicial review.

• Fairness (e.g., consultation) usually applies, but national security can justify exceptions.

• Lord Diplock’s 3 grounds for Judicial Review

Fulham Corporation v Attorney General (1921)

Illegality

Facts: Council used statutory powers to build a wash-house but instead built a commercial laundry.

Held: Ultra vires-acting outside the statutory purpose. -profit earned

Key Principle: Public authorities must act within the scope of powers granted by statute.

 Ex parte Fewings [1995]

Illegality

Facts: Somerset County Council banned stag hunting on land owned solely on moral grounds.

Held: Ultra vires. Decisions must align with statutory purpose-moral/political objections alone are insufficient.

Key Principle: Public bodies must act for proper purpose within statute

Anismic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commision [1969]

Illegality/Ouster Clause, The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality

Facts: Anisminic Ltd challenged the FCC’s refusal to grant compensation under the Foreign Compensation Act, which contained an ouster clause preventing judicial review.

Held: The ouster clause was ineffective. Courts can review decisions even with such clauses. FCC's decision was legally flawed-nullity.

Key Principles: Ouster clauses (legal clauses that prevent courts from reviewing certain decisions) cannot prevent judicial review. Courts ensure public authorities act within their legal powers. The rule of law overrides attempts to limit court jurisdiction.

Carltona v Commissioners of Works [1943]

Illegality

Facts: Authority delegated decision-making (authority passes power to make decisions to another person or group) for civil servants-questioned legality.

Held: Delegation to civil servants was lawful.

Key Principle: Ministers can delegate powers to subordinates but must ensure decisions align with statute (Carltona Principle)

British Oxygen Co v Minister of Technology [1977]

Illegality

Facts: Company challenged refusal of grant for investment in equipment. Policy: not grant money for purchases less than £25.

Held: Decision was lawful, had discretion set policies- provided it followed statutory guidelines.

Key Principle: Public bodies must exercise discretion within the framework of the law to not frustrate purpose of enabling statute, even if it involves applying a general policy.

Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]

Illegallity

Facts: Minister’s refusal to refer a matter to the committee (pricing of milk) was challenged.

Held: Minister acted unlawfully- improper discretion- refused to refer matters-political/personal reasons.

Key Principle: Discretion must be exercised to promote the statutory purpose.

Porter v McGill [2002]

Illegality, Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Westminister Council made decisions on sale of properties, allegedly influenced by political motives.

Held: Decision was invalid due to apparent bias.

Key Principle: Public bodies must not act based on personal or political views.

Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985]

Illegality, Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Council banned a rugby match- hosted a match an apartheid-era South African team; challenged by Wheeler.

Held: Decision was ultra vires –

Key Principles: can’t refuse moral/political objections not sufficient unless statute permits.

ex parte Doody [1994]

Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Prisoners serving mandatory life sentences challenged the Secretary of State’s failure to inform them of the recommended minimum term set by the judiciary.

Held: The Secretary of State must follow procedural fairness and inform prisoners of the reasons behind decisions regarding their minimum term.

Key Principles: Procedural fairness requires authorities to provide reasons for decisions, especially when affect individuals. -reinforces the duty to act fairly in decision-making, particularly when rights or freedoms are impacted.

ex parte Gunning [1985]

Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Local council decided to close several schools but had already made up its mind before the consultation ended.

Issue: Was the consultation process fair, or was the outcome predetermined?

Held: The consultation was unlawful because the council had already decided before genuinely considering feedback.

Key Principles: Gunning’s Principle: Consultation must be carried out with an open mind and before any decision is made.

ex parte Tarrant [1985]

Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Prisoners denied legal representation in serious disciplinary hearings.

Held: Board wrong to deny- serious cases (e.g. mutiny) require it.

Key Principle: Procedural fairness is flexible and depends on factors like case seriousness and complexity.

Re Pinochet Ugarte [2000]

Procedural Impropriety

Facts: Pinochet, former Chilean dictator, appealed extradition to Spain for human rights violations. One judge, Lord Hoffmann, had links to an organisation involved in the case.

Held: The appeal was invalid due to bias from Lord Hoffmann’s involvement.

Key Principle: Judicial impartiality is crucial; conflicts of interest can invalidate decisions.

Associated Provincial Picturehouses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]

Irrationality,

Facts: Cinema challenged Wednesbury Corporation's decision to ban under-15s from attending on Sundays.

Held: Court upheld the decision as not "so unreasonable" to be unlawful.

Key Principle: Wednesbury test – decisions can be challenged for irrationality if they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make them.

ex parte Brind [1991]

Irrationality,

Facts: Brind challenged a government decision to ban certain foreign broadcasters from appearing on British television, arguing that it violated his right to freedom of expression.

Held: The court upheld the government decision, finding it was within the Home Secretary's discretion.

Key Principle: Courts emphasised that national security concerns can justify restrictions on rights, even in cases involving freedom of expression.

ex parte Smith [1996]

Irrationality,

Facts: Two prisoners challenged Home Secretary’s decision to prevent from receiving hormone treatment for gender dysphoria while in prison- violated human rights.

Held: The court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision, ruling that the ban was justified- concerns over prison management and security.

Key Principle: Judicial review can challenge decisions on human rights grounds, but security and prison management concerns may justify restrictions on individual rights in certain circumstances.

R (Quila) v SSHD [2011]

Proportionality

Facts: Home Secretary's policy set a minimum age of 24 for immigrants to sponsor a partner’s visa, preventing forced marriages. Quila challenged this as it violated her right to marry.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful, finding it disproportionately interfered with the right to marry.

Key Principle:
Proportionality principle: policies must not excessively restrict rights unless clearly justified.

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013]

Proportionality

Facts: Bank Mellat challenged 2009 UK sanctions as disproportionate and rights-violating.

Held: Sanctions were unlawful and not properly targeted — failed proportionality test.

Principles:

• Actions must be proportionate.

• Sanctions need justification and targeting.

• Less intrusive options must be considered.

Importance: Courts can review sanctions for proportionality, even in national security.

Pham v SSHD [2015]

Proportionality

Facts: Pham’s citizenship was denied due to criminal convictions- argued decision was disproportionate.

Held: Supreme Court found the decision disproportionate as it failed to consider all factors, including rehabilitation.

Key Principles:

• Proportionality: Decisions should balance national security with individual rights.

• Judicial Review: Courts can review proportionality, even in national security cases.

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017]

The Rule of Law

Facts: UNISON challenged tribunal fees, saying they stopped people from accessing justice.

Held: Supreme Court said the fees were unlawful because they blocked access to justice and went beyond the Lord Chancellor's powers.

Key Principle: Access to justice is a key constitutional right under the rule of law. Barriers like fees must be fair and not stop people from using the courts.

Entick v Carrington (1765)

The Rule of Law

Facts: The government issued a warrant to search Entick’s home and seize papers over alleged seditious libel. Entick challenged the warrant as unlawful.

Held: The court ruled the search was unlawful. Government actions must be explicitly authorized by law.

Key Principle: Government powers must be based on legal authority- highlights the Rule of Law, stressing that the state cannot act beyond what is allowed by law.

 

R (Jackson) v Attorney- General [2005]

The Rule of Law

Facts: Jackson challenged the Hunting Act 2004 because not approved by House of Lords- claimed unconstitutional.

Held: Act was valid. The use of the Parliament Acts was lawful, and Parliament had the authority to legislate in this manner.

Key Principle: reinforced Parliamentary Supremacy, affirming courts cannot challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament using the Parliament Acts.

R v Mullen [2000]

The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality

Facts: Mullen convicted- argued law was vague and uncertain-not clear to know what conduct was prohibited.

Held: ruling law not unconstitutionally vague. emphasised statutes should be interpreted: context, purpose, and understanding of the legal terms.

Key Principle: Laws must be sufficiently clear to avoid violating the principle of legality (rule of law). However, courts can interpret vague statutes

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017]

The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality

Facts: Miller challenged the government's use of prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 (starting the Brexit process) without Parliament’s approval.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled Article 50 required parliamentary approval,- involved altering domestic law.

Key Principle: government cannot use prerogative powers to change domestic law without Parliament’s approval, reinforcing parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.

ex parte Pierson [1998]

The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality

Facts: Pierson challenged the Home Secretary's decision to apply a mandatory life sentence to him, arguing it violated the Human Rights Act.

Held: The House of Lords ruled in Pierson’s favor, holding that the Home Secretary’s decision was unlawful.

Key Principle: reinforced importance of ensuring decisions under statutory powers align with human rights obligations. Courts interpret legislation to avoid conflicts with human rights standards.

R (Evans) v Attorney-General [2015]

The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality

Facts: Evans wanted letters from Prince Charles to ministers released under the Freedom of Information Act, but the Attorney-General blocked it with a veto.

Held: Court ruled for Evans — the veto was unlawful and interfered with the right to access information.

Key Principle: Strengthened transparency and public access to information; ministerial veto under FOI is subject to court review.