The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the claimant had abused the process of the court by claiming that the university was in breach of contract in the way it had applied its own student regulations.

It is not an abuse of process for a student at a university where there is no charter or appointed visitor to claim breach of contract by private law procedure.

The House of Lords had to decide whether the claimants had abused the process of the court by bringing their claim under private law procedure.

As a general rule it would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of the process of the court for a claimant complaining of a public authority’s infringement of their public law rights to seek redress by ordinary action.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether it was appropriate to review the decision of a health authority which had refused to fund treatment.

Unless a public authority exceeds or abuses its powers, it is not appropriate for the court to intervene especially where matters of professional judgement are concerned. It is also not appropriate for the court to pass judgement on the way a public authority, acting within its powers, spends its allocated budget.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club was amenable to judicial review.

Such a body will not be amenable to judicial review unless it is clear that its origin, history, constitution, and membership show that it has been woven into a system of governmental control.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Code of Practice Committee of the city panel on takeovers and mergers was susceptible to judicial review.

A non-statutory, self-regulatory body may be amenable to judicial review if there is a sufficient public element in its functions.