ADMIN + HR CASES Overview

Datafin

Non-statutory bodies can be subject to JR if they exercise public functions.

Jockey Club

JR not available where relationship is private/contractual.

Chief Rabbi

Religious bodies not subject to JR - not public functions.

Zahid

Universities can be subject to JR - public functions despite contract.

Fleet Street Casuals

Defined public interest standing - JR available even without personal interest.

Rose Theatre Trust

Denied standing to group with no greater interest than general public.

Greenpeace (No.2)

Associational standing allowed due to members' health and expertise.

Somerset

JR about abuse of power, not personal rights - public interest standing valid.

AXA General Insurance

Endorsed wide public interest standing in constitutional and rights-based challenges.

Walton

Reinforced that concerned citizens may have standing in public interest matters.

Rees-Mogg

Standing granted based on genuine constitutional concern.

Miller EU case

Confirmed public interest standing in major constitutional challenge.

Miller cherry case

Public interest standing in separation of powers case.

GCHQ

Framework for judicial review grounds.

Anisminic

All errors of law are reviewable.

Padfield

If no reasons are given, the courts may infer that there were no good reasons for that particular decision.

Porter v Magill

Improper purpose - political motive is unlawful.

E v Home Secretary

Mistake of fact as a separate ground for JR.

British Oxygen

Policies must not rigidly fetter discretion.

Wednesbury

A decision is unlawful if it is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.'

GCHQ (Diplock)

Irrationality = 'outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards.'

Tesco

Once the decision-maker has taken account of all material considerations, 'it is at liberty (provided that it does not lapse into Wednesbury irrationality) to give them whatever weight [it] thinks fit or no weight at all.'

Bugdaycay

Where fundamental rights are at stake, courts apply 'anxious scrutiny.'

Bank Mellat

Sets out 4-stage proportionality test.

Baldwin

Right to be heard in admin decisions; removed outdated judicial/administrative distinction.

Doody

Duty to give notice & reasons (in some contexts); core case on audi alteram partem in executive decisions.

Porter

Fair-minded observer test for bias; modern standard for apparent bias.

GCHQ

Legitimate expectation from past practice; review for procedural fairness.

Liverpool Taxi Fleet

Expectation from promise of consultation.

Unilever

Consistent past conduct gave rise to expectation.

Khan

Reliance on official policy guidance created expectation.

Mandalia

Failure to follow own policy = procedural unfairness.

MFK Underwriting

Expectation must be clear and specific.

Sunday Times

early ECtHR application of proportionality.

Hatton

applied 'fair balance' and proportionality.

Soering

introduced proportionality in extradition context.

Begum

interference must be justified under Art 9(2). Article 9 (Freedom of religion).

YL v Birmingham

Contracted-out care services; private care home not a hybrid PA despite public funding.

Donoghue

housing association held to be exercising public functions.

Pennine

family members could claim under Art. Indirect victim claim (Art. 2).

Anufrijeva

Damages are rare, usually s3 / 4 incompatibility.

Ghaidan

Used Section 3 to read legislation in a way that extended tenancy rights to same-sex partners.

R v A

Interpreted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to allow prior sexual history evidence in rape trials when necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Bellinger v Bellinger

Court declined to use Section 3 to reinterpret the Matrimonial Causes Act regarding gender recognition; issued a Section 4 declaration instead.

Nicholson

Article 8 and assisted dying; democratic debate needed; infringement of autonomy? judicial interpretation?

Alconbury

Courts should follow 'clear and constant' ECtHR jurisprudence, unless special circumstances justify otherwise.

Ullah

UK courts should 'keep pace' with Strasbourg jurisprudence—no more, no less.

AF no3

Lord Rodger: 'Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed' — highlights strong deference.

Horncastle

UKSC declined to follow ECtHR where Strasbourg's judgment didn't appreciate UK legal context (hearsay evidence).

Pinnock

Lord Neuberger: Emphasised constructive dialogue—courts are not bound to follow every ECtHR ruling.

Elan-Cane

Refused to impose 'X' gender marker on passports; held that UK had a wide margin of appreciation.

Osborn

reaffirmed the role of common law as a parallel source of rights protection; HRA did not displace common law rights.

Kennedy

Emphasised the importance of starting with domestic law, not just Convention rights; reinforced a common law constitutionalism trend.

TYRELL

'...unpopularity of the Act' in part due to the fact that 'the HRA has been perceived as 'another European import'.