Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This case note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. There is also discussion of the deployment of national security arguments to avoid review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

10.1093/he/9780191868306.003.0011 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Civil Service ◽

Public Law ◽

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords

10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0029 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Public Law ◽

Case Note ◽

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Begum (By her litigation friend, Rahman)) v Headteacher, Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, House of Lords

10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0045 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

High School ◽

Religious Beliefs ◽

Public Law ◽

Case Note ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Religious Dress

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Begum (By her litigation friend, Rahman)) v Headteacher, Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, House of Lords. This case concerned whether a school unlawfully limited a pupil’s right to manifest her religious beliefs through religious dress. The case note explores how a balance is struck between competing qualified rights, and so also contains discussion of the concept of proportionality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords

10.1093/he/9780191868306.003.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

National Security ◽

Public Law ◽

Secretary Of State ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Human Rights Act ◽

Human Rights Act 1998 ◽

Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the Human Rights Act 1998, the willingness of the courts to engage with national security matters and, by extension, considered how key constitutional principles should shape the courts’ approach. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Burmah Oil Company v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, House of Lords

10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Rule Of Law ◽

Public Law ◽

Case Note ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Oil Company

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Burmah Oil Company v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, House of Lords. This case, read together with the War Damage Act 1965, outlines the capacity of Parliament to enact retroactive legislation. The case note discusses this in the context of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

14. The grounds for judicial review

Constitutional and Administrative Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198847120.003.0014 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 309-353

Author(s):

Neil Parpworth

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Civil Service ◽

Public Law ◽

Fiduciary Duty ◽

Bad Faith ◽

Natural Justice ◽

Legitimate Expectations ◽

Fair Hearing ◽

The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals)

10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0033 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Small Businesses ◽

Public Law ◽

The Self ◽

Locus Standi ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Inland Revenue ◽

National Federation ◽

Liberal Approach

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as the Fleet Street Casuals case). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals)

10.1093/he/9780191897689.003.0033 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Small Businesses ◽

Public Law ◽

The Self ◽

Locus Standi ◽

House Of Lords ◽

Inland Revenue ◽

National Federation ◽

Liberal Approach

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords

10.1093/he/9780191897689.003.0028 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Public Law ◽

Case Note ◽

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.