Self-test questions: JR: Illegality

* not completed

. Which of the following best describes 'illegality' as a ground for judicial review according to Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374?

The exercise of discretion must be reasonable and proportional. correct incorrect

A decision-maker must correctly understand the law that regulates their decision-making power and must give effect to it. correct incorrect

A decision cannot be so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied their minds to the question could have arrived at it. correct incorrect

Where a decision affects the rights or interests of individuals, any detriment must be not more than necessary to give effect to the policy goal of the decision. correct incorrect

The exercise of discretion must give effect to the purpose for which the power was given by statute, and there are no limits to the degree of scrutiny the courts have in ascertaining whether the decision best achieves the policy objectives as intended by parliament. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following best describes 'illegality' as a ground for judicial review according to Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374?

The exercise of discretion must be reasonable and proportional. correct incorrect

A decision-maker must correctly understand the law that regulates their decision-making power and must give effect to it. correct incorrect

A decision cannot be so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied their minds to the question could have arrived at it. correct incorrect

Where a decision affects the rights or interests of individuals, any detriment must be not more than necessary to give effect to the policy goal of the decision. correct incorrect

The exercise of discretion must give effect to the purpose for which the power was given by statute, and there are no limits to the degree of scrutiny the courts have in ascertaining whether the decision best achieves the policy objectives as intended by parliament. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Harriet was recently fired from her job doing emergency repairs at the airport. She claims that the termination of her contract was unlawful because the Aviation Act 1923 specified that employment decisions in relation to airport maintenance were made by local Aviation Labour Boards - which were constituted equally of employers and employees in the aviation industry. In this instance, the decision to terminate was taken by the airport manager, who the Board had delegated responsibility to for both hiring staff and terminating contracts. The Board argued that because they had the power to make decisions on employment, they also had the power to delegate those decisions.

Which of the following best describes the likely view of the court in relation to Harriet's claim?

That the Board had unlawfully fettered their discretion by not considering each instance of a termination individually. correct incorrect

That the Board had unlawfully delegated their powers, and therefore the decision taken by the Manager was a 'nullity' (i.e. not a valid decision). correct incorrect

That the Board had the power to delegate responsibility for decisions on employment contracts provided adequate guidance was given to the Manager. correct incorrect

That the Board could lawfully delegate its powers as it sees appropriate, and it is not for the courts to interfere in the merits of the specific process by which decisions are made. correct incorrect

That the Board had unlawfully fettered their discretion by not considering each instance of a termination individually. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Shane has been selling freshly made pastries at a stall along the boardwalks of the shore for the past five years. However, this year he was told by the local Shore Management Committee that they had made a blanket policy not to grant any licenses to set up stalls as there were concerns that too much rubbish was being left in the area. When Shane returned with a proposal to ensure there would be little to no rubbish left behind from selling his pastries, the administrator for the committee explained that it was a blanket policy with no exceptions and cited the discretion the committee had to decide applications under the Parks and Public Pathways Act 2001.
Shane believes that the Shore Management Committee has acted unlawfully. Which of the following best describes whether Shane has a prima facie (arguable) case for judicial review based on the ground of 'illegality'?

Shane has an arguable case. For the Committee's discretion to be lawfully exercised they must consider all applications on their individual merits, unconstrained by reference to any policy. correct incorrect

Shane has an arguable case. For the Committee's discretion to be lawfully exercised they must consider all applications on their individual merits unconstrained by a general rule. correct incorrect

Shane does not have an arguable case. Discretion may lawfully be constrained by reference to policy or rules. correct incorrect

Shane has an arguable case. Discretion may lawfully be constrained by reference to policy or rules but must remain open to new arguments and positions. correct incorrect

* not completed

. According to the Mushroom Act 1919, the Gourmet Mushroom Board decides key regulations on health and safety practices in the UK mushroom growing industry. The Board is composed of growers that represent the diversity of specialisations for growing different types of mushrooms. A small group of mushroom growers (the applicants) claim that elements of the regulations aren't appropriate for the unique process required for the type of mushrooms they grow, noting that the regulations were established before there was a practice in the industry for growing these specific mushrooms. Further, they claim that the Board has failed to address the issue because the majority of the members are not detrimentally affected by the regulations.
The Mushroom Act 1919 includes a provision for investigating decisions of the Board in relation to a variety of potential issues, including where a majority fails to adequately address issues affecting a minority. However, it is up to Minister of Agriculture to give permission for an investigation to proceed, and she has refused permission stating she did not want to interfere with the decisions of the Board. The applicants are seeking an order mandamus requiring the Minister to give permission for the investigation to proceed, however the Minister has argued that according to the statute, whether she gives permission is fully at her discretion with no requirements to give her reasons. The Act does specify that 'permission is at the Minister's discretion, and there is no procedural requirement for the Minister to provide the reasons for their decision to the applicants'.
Which of the following best describes the position a court is likely to take in relation to the application?

The Minister's discretion is unfettered; therefore she has no duty to decide in favour of an investigation. There is no prima facie (arguable) case that the decision was unlawful. The court would not issue an order Mandamus requiring the Minister to give permission for the investigation to proceed. correct incorrect

Because the Minister is not required to give reasons for her decision, it follows that the court cannot call into question those reasons. There is no prima facie (arguable) case that the decision was unlawful. The court would not issue an order Mandamus. correct incorrect

It is for the court to interpret the law and they would likely find the Minister had not given effect to the purpose of the legislation (and her discretionary power) in failing to provide permission for the investigation. The court would issue an order Mandamus. correct incorrect

Evidence of bias means the court would find the decision unlawful on the grounds of procedural impropriety. The court would issue an order Mandamus. correct incorrect

* not completed

. The Community Growth and Wellbeing Act 1997 'promotes community wellbeing and sustainable development' by providing funds for local Community Committees to plan community events, manage education and outreach programmes, and award grants to selected local projects and initiatives that further the aims of the Act.
James, who has set up a 'bicycle café' offering free workshops and training on bicycle repair and maintenance, with a special outreach programme for youth, was disappointed not to be one of the initiatives who received funding this year. After hearing that his friend, Yoriko, received funding for their project setting up a café where anyone can come and learn basic cooking skills, James felt the decision was unfair. Looking into the process and decision further, James believes the decision may be unlawful because: (i) The committee delegated the task of reviewing the financial viability to a consultant who then presented a rating and a brief summary for each applicant to the committee; and (ii) cycling is more important to sustainable development than cooking skills.
Which of the following best describes the likely position of the court in relation to James' two arguments that the decision was unlawful?

Assessing whether James' project was better suited to promoting sustainable development than Yoriko's would be assessing the merits of the decision rather than its lawfulness, however, delegating the task of reviewing the financial viability of the project is unlawful and invalidates the decision. correct incorrect

Assessing whether James' project was better suited to promoting sustainable development than Yoriko's would be assessing the merits of the decision rather than its lawfulness. Further, tasks may be delegated by the Committee provided they retain overall control over the decision. correct incorrect

As decision makers must give effect to the purpose for which their power has been conferred, the court would review whether James' application was better suited to promoting sustainable development than Yoriko's. However, tasks may be delegated by the Committee provided they retain overall control over the decision. correct incorrect

Delegating the task of reviewing the financial viability of the project was unlawful and invalidates the decision. Further, as decision makers must give effect to the purpose for which their power has been conferred, the court would review whether James' application was better suited to promoting sustainable development than Yoriko's. correct incorrect

* not completed

. The preamble of the Wilderness Act 1982 explains that the purpose of the Act is to protect wilderness and ecological diversity in the UK. Sec 62 of the Act confers onto the Minister of Sport and Tourism the power to grant funding for projects that involve 'outdoor and wilderness education experiences.' Rather than make the decisions directly, the Minister has tasked a group of civil servants to form a committee to review and ultimately decide on which applications will successfully receive funding under sec 62. This year the Committee chose to award a large grant for a proposal to build a large golf club and resort in what is currently a wilderness area.
Friends of the Forrest, a non-profit organisation providing outdoor education experiences and promotes wilderness conservation efforts in the UK believe this decision may be unlawful. Which of the following best describe the position the court may take in relation to the claim that the decision is unlawful?

Although the court would not likely challenge the merits of the decision, the Minister has unlawfully delegated his discretion. The decision is unlawful. correct incorrect

A golf club would does not qualify as an outdoor wilderness education experience and building one would be at odds with the purpose of the Act as it would involve the destruction of a wilderness area. Further, the Minister has unlawfully delegated his discretion. The decision is unlawful. correct incorrect

A golf club would not qualify as an outdoor wilderness education experience and building one would be at odds with the purpose of the Act as it would involve the destruction of a wilderness area. The decision is unlawful. correct incorrect

The court would not likely challenge the merits of the decision. The decision is lawful. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Section 13 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2013 confers unto the Minister of the Environment the power to decide locations for new solar and wind energy instalments. However, the Minister of the Environment has decided to choose locations based exclusively on what the Minister of Transport and Public Utilities decides is best.
Which of the following best describe whether this involves an unlawful use of the Minister's discretionary powers?

The Minister's discretion has been unlawfully abdicated. correct incorrect

The exercise of discretion is in contravention of the Carltona principle. correct incorrect

The Minister has not given effect to the purpose for which their power has been conferred. correct incorrect

The Minister can make decisions in a way they deem most appropriate to the purpose of the legislation, and this can include basing their decision on someone else's. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following describes the legal principle established inCarltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works2 All ER 560 (known as the 'Carltona' principle)?

Those conferred with a power of discretion cannot bind their decision to that of a different person or body - that is they cannot 'abdicate' their discretion. correct incorrect

Ministers are able to delegate powers to appropriate civil servants working within their departments. correct incorrect

Ministers may not delegate their power to civil servants as they are independent office holders. correct incorrect

Those conferred with a power of discretion can lawfully bind their decision to that of a different person or body provided they have good reasons to do so. correct incorrect

Those conferred with a power of discretion cannot fetter that discretion with a blanket application of a policy or rule. correct incorrect

* not completed

. In Roberts v Hopwood [1925] A.C. 578 the court found that the decision of a local council to increase the wages of their lowest paid employees was unlawful within the powers conferred to them under s. 62 of the Metropolis management Act 1855 which stipulates that: '[the council] may allow to such clerks, treasurers, surveyors, officers, and servants respectively such salaries and wages as the board or vestry may think fit.'
Which of the following identifies the reason for the decision?

The council had fettered their discretion with a blanket policy. correct incorrect

The decision the council came to was irrational (in the sense of Wednesbury unreasonableness). correct incorrect

The council had unlawfully delegated their powers. correct incorrect

The council had not followed the statutory procedure for making the decision. correct incorrect

The council had based their decision on irrelevant considerations. correct incorrect

* not completed

. Which of the following best describes a legal principle articulated in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (1968)?

That the procedural requirements as set out in statute must be followed. correct incorrect

That a decision maker must give effect to the purpose for which their power has been conferred. correct incorrect

That the exercise of discretion should not be fettered through an application of broad policies that prevent full consideration of cases which may raise issues not previously considered. correct incorrect

That Ministers may delegate their powers to their servants (i.e. civil servants who work in the ministry), and that Ministers are held accountable for the actions of those servants. correct incorrect