Chapter 14 End-of-chapter questions

An orthodox account of the sovereignty of Parliament might say: 'Parliament is sovereign, so it can prohibit the judicial review of the exercise of a certain statutory power if it wishes'. Is this statement accurate? Select the best answer.

Parliament is sovereign and can, in theory, make or unmake any law it wishes. However, courts have shown a willingness to use their powers of statutory interpretation to reduce the impact of legislative ouster clauses. Whether an unambiguous and direct ouster clause would ultimately withstand judicial scrutiny remains an open question.

Parliament is sovereign and can, in theory, make or unmake any law it wishes. However, courts have shown a willingness to use their powers of statutory interpretation to reduce the impact of legislative ouster clauses. It is clear beyond doubt that if the legislature were to pass an unambiguous and direct ouster clause, this would not be enforced by the courts.

Parliament is sovereign and can, in theory, make or unmake any law it wishes. Courts have not been able to work their way around ouster clauses as they have been housed in primary legislation. Whether this position might change in the future remains an open question.

Parliament is sovereign and can, in theory, make or unmake any law it wishes. Whilst in one case decided in the 1960s, the House of Lords showed a willingness to use statutory interpretation to reduce the impact of a legislative ouster clause, no court has done so since and it is unlikely that a court would do so again.

Which of the following statements provides the most accurate account of the situations under which actions can judicially reviewed? Select the best answer.

Actions of the state and those of public bodies can be challenged through judicial review, although this only applies to those actions which fall into the category of 'jurisdictional' actions. Beyond this, whether a case is justiciable in practice depends on the subject matter of the action taken; some acts will be determined to lie outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Actions of the state and those of public bodies can be challenged through judicial review, although this does not apply to the application of prerogative powers. Beyond this, whether a case is justiciable in practice depends on the subject matter of the action taken; some acts will be determined to lie outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Actions of the state and those of public bodies can be challenged through judicial review. There are no strict abstract categories between that which can and that which cannot be challenged. Whether a case is justiciable in practice depends on the subject matter of the action taken; some acts will be determined to lie outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Actions of the state and those of public bodies can be challenged through judicial review. There are no strict abstract categories between that which can and that which cannot be challenged. All actions covering any subject matter are justiciable matters for the courts to determine.

Match each of the cases below to the authority it supports.

Challenges to administrative actions should be pursued exclusively through judicial review rather than through the pursuit of private law remedies.

Courts are not competent to assess the merits of certain claims, such as in this case, which involves a challenge squarely centred on foreign policy.

The question of whether an individual or body has standing should not be determined separately from an assessment of the overall merits and importance of the case.

When interpreting ouster clauses, the court should presume that it is not the intention of Parliament to restrict access to judicial review completely and should adopt an interpretation which reflects this.

An individual may be able to claim standing in a case even where they are not personally affected, particularly when there is no better individual to represent the interest arising.

A defendant in a criminal claim is permitted to challenge an action of a public body in course of their defence where relevant, notwithstanding that it is not taking place in administrative law proceedings.

Minister X identifies a certain area as a target of regeneration efforts. In order to encourage new businesses to move to that area, Minister X is granted the power to award new businesses set up in the area a tax cut of 20%, so long as they can show that their business 'contributes positively to the daily lives of residents'. Business Y moves to the area because it would make financial sense to make use of the promised tax cut. In January, they apply for the benefit. In February, their application is refused by Minister X. In October, following poor sales and facing the risk of closure, Business Y seeks to challenge that refusal. Mr Z owns Business Y. There is an appeals scheme in place for those who are dissatisfied with such decisions, but because of the large amount of paperwork required, Mr Z decides to proceed to judicial review instead. However, primary legislation dictates that the decisions of Minister X in this respect 'cannot be appealed to any court of law'.
The statements below outline some potential issues which arise in the above scenario and the legal position in each case. Which are accurate? Select all that apply.

The judicial review application has been made outside of the three-month time limit for administrative actions, and there are no obvious reasons as to why this delay took place. This means that permission for judicial review will not be granted.

The claimant did not pursue the appeals scheme in place. The inconvenience involved would not change matters. Permission for judicial review will not be granted.

The claimant did not pursue the appeals scheme in place. However, the court would recognise that the level of paperwork involved would be inconvenient for the claimant and thus, permission for judicial review should still be granted.

Primary legislation 'ousts' judicial review. However, it is likely that a court would interpret the ouster clause narrowly, following cases of Anisminic and Privacy International. In particular, a clause precluding appeal would not be interpreted as precluding judicial review. It is therefore likely that judicial review would be possible notwithstanding the ouster clause.

The claimant's administrative challenge is out of time, but so long as they have not formally submitted their challenge, they can pursue a private law remedy instead, which has a much more generous time limit of six years.

The judicial review application has not been made directly by an individual affected, as the decision technically affects Business Y, rather than Mr Z. Therefore, Mr Z does not have standing.

Quiz Content