Judicial Review Principles, Grounds And Cases! Trivia Quiz
(230).webp "Judicial Review Principles, Grounds And Cases! Trivia Quiz - Quiz")
This is a quiz which should cover the entire topic of Judicial Review Grounds.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
Lord Diplock in a very famous case established the three different Grounds for Judicial Review: Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety.
- A.
Ex parte Dixon
- B.
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ)
- C.
Anisminic Case
Correct Answer
B. CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ)Explanation
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ) is the correct answer because this case is a landmark judgment that established the three grounds for Judicial Review - Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety. Lord Diplock's ruling in this case clarified and solidified these grounds, providing a framework for reviewing the legality and fairness of administrative decisions. The case involved the government's decision to ban trade unions at GCHQ, and the court's decision to review this decision based on the three grounds had a significant impact on administrative law in the United Kingdom.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
So, the GCHQ case established the three grounds for judicial review. This section will relate to Illegality. It is important to note at this point that the Grounds are only considered if the claimant is successful in the Permission Stage. Illegality deals with simple ultra vires, and abuses of discretion. In this case, the public body was empowered to establish wash-houses for non-commercial use by residents. The abuse of power came as the laundry shop was opened on a commercial basis.
- A.
AG v Fulham Corporation
- B.
Porter v Magill
- C.
Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones
Correct Answer
A. AG v Fulham CorporationExplanation
The correct answer, AG v Fulham Corporation, is a relevant case that established the ground of illegality for judicial review. In this case, the public body had the power to establish wash-houses for non-commercial use, but they abused their power by opening a laundry shop on a commercial basis. This demonstrates the concept of simple ultra vires and an abuse of discretion, which are key aspects of the ground of illegality in judicial review.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
In this case it was established that a public body cannot levy a charge on the public without statutory authority. Planning authority charged £25 for informal consultation.
- A.
R v MOD ex parte Smith
- B.
Ex parte McCarthy & Stone
- C.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
Correct Answer
B. Ex parte McCarthy & StoneExplanation
In the case of ex parte McCarthy & Stone, it was determined that a public body cannot impose a charge on the public without proper legal authorization. This principle is applicable in this scenario where a planning authority charged £25 for an informal consultation. The correct answer suggests that the case of ex parte McCarthy & Stone supports the notion that the planning authority's action of imposing the charge without statutory authority is not permissible.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
In this case, the public body used their power to build public toilets to build a subway to access them. This was deemed to be going outside what the statute intended to be within their power.
- A.
Ealing Council ex parte Times
- B.
Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for Environment
- C.
Westminster Corp v LNW Railway
Correct Answer
C. Westminster Corp v LNW RailwayExplanation
In the case of Westminster Corp v LNW Railway, the correct answer refers to a legal precedent where the court ruled that a public body had exceeded its powers. The public body in question used its authority to construct public toilets to instead build a subway for accessing the toilets. The court deemed this action to be beyond the scope of what the statute intended, indicating that the public body had acted outside the limits of its power. This case serves as a precedent for similar situations where public bodies must adhere to the intended purpose and scope of their powers.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Some statutes will permit very widely worded power to ministers or bodies, using wording like "as he sees fit..." which can be argued covers all eventualities. However, it was found in this case that, "however subjectively worded" or widely worded... Discretionary powers are never absolute.
- A.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
- B.
Sagnata v Norwich
- C.
Carltona v Commissioners of Works
Correct Answer
A. Padfield v Minister of AgricultureExplanation
In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, it was established that discretionary powers granted to ministers or bodies, even if they are worded broadly or subjectively, are not absolute. This means that these powers cannot be used without any limitations or constraints. The case highlights that even when statutes provide wide-ranging authority, there are still limits to the exercise of discretion. Therefore, the correct answer suggests that discretionary powers are never absolute, regardless of how they are worded.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Discretion can ligitimately lead to a number of different conclusions. To take away these conclusions is referred to as FETTERING discretion, which is unlawful. In this case, the discretion was fettered when a policy not to grant any licenses was put into force - which was found to be unlawful.
- A.
R v Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones
- B.
Porter v Magill
- C.
Sagnata v Norwich
Correct Answer
C. Sagnata v NorwichExplanation
The correct answer, Sagnata v Norwich, is likely referring to a legal case that involved the concept of fettering discretion. In this case, it can be inferred that the court ruled that a policy that restricted or limited the exercise of discretion was deemed unlawful. The case of Sagnata v Norwich may have set a precedent or provided legal guidance on the issue of fettering discretion. However, without more information, it is difficult to provide a more detailed explanation of the specific facts and legal reasoning behind this case.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
This case also refers to an overly rigid policy, as it did not allow for exceptions. Public bodies are entitled to adopt firm policies, as long as they aren't so rigid that there is no chance for exceptions - as this can fetter discretion.
- A.
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
- B.
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
- C.
Ealing Council, ex parte Times
Correct Answer
B. British Oxygen v Minister of TechnologyExplanation
The correct answer is British Oxygen v Minister of Technology. This case is relevant because it highlights the importance of not having overly rigid policies that do not allow for exceptions. It emphasizes that public bodies can have firm policies as long as there is still room for discretion and the possibility of making exceptions. This case serves as a reminder that policies should not be so inflexible that they hinder the exercise of judgment and decision-making.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Delegated discretion is generally not allowed - which case established that public bodies "should exercise the powers which they were granted themselves" Judicial and disciplinary powers are unsuitable for discretion.
- A.
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
- B.
Port Talbot, ex parte Jones
- C.
Wheeler v Leicester City Council
Correct Answer
A. Barnard v National Dock Labour BoardExplanation
In the case of Barnard v National Dock Labour Board, it was established that public bodies should exercise the powers that they were granted themselves. This means that delegated discretion is generally not allowed. Therefore, the statement that judicial and disciplinary powers are unsuitable for discretion aligns with the ruling in this case.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
This case however, suggested that delegation of powers can be implied, for instance, a minister can delegate their powers.
- A.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
- B.
Carltona v Commissioners for Works
- C.
Porter v Magill
Correct Answer
B. Carltona v Commissioners for WorksExplanation
Carltona v Commissioners for Works is the correct answer because it supports the statement that delegation of powers can be implied. In this case, the court held that a minister can delegate their powers to their officials or subordinates without explicitly stating so. This principle allows for efficient administration and decision-making within government departments.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
The courts consider the relevancy of the decision to the powers they were granted, For instance, in this case, the council used their powers as a weapon in a dispute. It relates to a ban of certain publications in a library.
- A.
Ridge v Baldwin
- B.
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board
- C.
Ealings Council, ex parte Times
Correct Answer
C. Ealings Council, ex parte TimesExplanation
The correct answer is Ealings Council, ex parte Times. This case is relevant because it involves the exercise of powers by a council and the consideration of the relevancy of their decision. The council's use of their powers as a weapon in a dispute is similar to the situation described in the question, where the decision relates to a ban of certain publications in a library. Therefore, this case provides a suitable explanation for the given correct answer.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
This case related to the relevancy rule and involves where a decision for housing was made to grant a councillor housing due to the status of the councillor. This was seen as an irrelevant factor in deciding whether they should be given housing.
- A.
Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones
- B.
Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
- C.
Porter v Magill
Correct Answer
A. Port Talbot BC, ex parte JonesExplanation
In the case of Port Talbot BC, ex parte Jones, the correct answer, the court ruled that the decision to grant housing to a councillor based on their status was irrelevant. This case demonstrates the application of the relevancy rule, which states that irrelevant factors should not be considered when making a decision. The court found that the councillor's status should not have been a determining factor in whether they should be given housing. This case highlights the importance of making decisions based on relevant factors and not allowing irrelevant considerations to influence the outcome.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
Improper Purpose also comes under the header of Illegality. Powers can only be used for the pupose they were granted. This is sometimes stated in the statute. Which case established this rule?
- A.
Sagnata v Norwich
- B.
Sydney v Campbell
- C.
British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
Correct Answer
B. Sydney v CampbellExplanation
Sydney v Campbell is the case that established the rule that powers can only be used for the purpose they were granted. In this case, the court held that a power conferred by a statute can only be exercised for the purpose for which it was given and not for any other purpose. This principle ensures that public authorities do not misuse their powers and act within the boundaries set by the law.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
In this case a sports club was banned from using a public park because of their views of the apatheid boycott. This was considered to be an improper use of the public bodies power to control access to the park - individuals/organisations cannot be punished for their views.
- A.
Schmidt v HS
- B.
Somerset City Council v Fewings
- C.
Wheeler v Leicester City Council
Correct Answer
C. Wheeler v Leicester City CouncilExplanation
In the case of Wheeler v Leicester City Council, the court ruled that individuals or organizations cannot be punished or denied access to public facilities based on their views. This ruling supports the explanation for the given correct answer, which states that the sports club was banned from using a public park due to their views on the apartheid boycott. The council's action was considered an improper use of power, as it violated the principle that individuals should not be punished for their views.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The next section will cover Irrationality. This is described as a "decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority could ever have come to it." Who quoted this?
- A.
Lord Denning
- B.
Lord Green
- C.
Lord Laws
Correct Answer
B. Lord GreenExplanation
Lord Green is the one who quoted the statement "decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority could ever have come to it." This quote refers to a decision that is so irrational that even a reasonable authority would never have made it.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
It is a very high threshold to prove irrationality of a public authority - this strictly considers only the intentions of parliament. Which case establishes that the merits of the case shaln't be reviewed?
- A.
Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment
- B.
Ealings Council ex parte Times
- C.
Port Talbot Borough Council ex parte Jones
Correct Answer
A. Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for EnvironmentExplanation
The correct answer is Nottinghamshire County Council v Secretary of State for Environment. This case establishes that the merits of the case should not be reviewed when trying to prove the irrationality of a public authority. The focus is solely on the intentions of parliament, rather than the specific details or merits of the case itself.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
This section will cover Procedural Impropriety - again established by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case. This covers a bodies failure to: observe procedural rules, and/or observe basic common law rules. A: Failing to comply with a statutory procedure may invalidate a decision, for example publicity and consultation rules. B: Some people may argue they have a ligitimate expectation usually to be consulted, before a decision has been made. A subcategory from ligitimate expectation is Express Undertaking. In this case "Aliens" (foreigners) who had their leave prematurely terminated had legitimate expectation to have their case heard.
- A.
Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
- B.
Ex parte Khan
- C.
Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs
Correct Answer
C. Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs -
- 17.
This case deals with past practice. The practice had always been to consult the union before making any changes to the employees employment contract - therefore they had legitimate expectation to be consulted.
- A.
GCHQ Case
- B.
Ridge v Baldwin
- C.
MOD ex parte Smith
Correct Answer
A. GCHQ CaseExplanation
The GCHQ Case refers to the case of Ridge v Baldwin and MOD ex parte Smith. In this case, the question is likely asking about the significance or relevance of the GCHQ Case. The GCHQ Case is important because it established the principle of legitimate expectation. It recognized that employees have a legitimate expectation to be consulted before any changes are made to their employment contract. This principle was applied in various cases, including Ridge v Baldwin and MOD ex parte Smith, where the court ruled in favor of the employees based on their legitimate expectation to be consulted.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Natural Justice can be summarised into an equation: Right to be heard + Rule against bias = General Duty of Fairness Natural justice is now generally concerned with public bodies determining individual rights: Which case established this?
- A.
MOD ex parte Smith
- B.
Ridge v Baldwin
- C.
GCHQ Case
Correct Answer
B. Ridge v BaldwinExplanation
Ridge v Baldwin is the correct answer because this case established the principle that natural justice applies to public bodies when determining individual rights. In this case, the court ruled that a local authority had a duty to give an individual the opportunity to be heard before making a decision that could potentially affect their rights. This decision solidified the idea that public bodies must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the rule against bias, when making decisions that impact individuals.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
In this case, the lord chancellor had shares in one of the companies involved which lead to their favoured decision. It was phrased as he had Direct Pecuniary Interest.
- A.
Porter v Magill
- B.
Carltona v Commissioners of Works
- C.
Dimes v Grand Canal
Correct Answer
C. Dimes v Grand CanalExplanation
The correct answer is Dimes v Grand Canal. In this case, the lord chancellor had shares in one of the companies involved, which created a direct pecuniary interest. This influenced their decision in favor of the company they had shares in.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
In this case, the HOUSE OF LORDS judge (Corrupt or what?!) had a close alignment with one of the parties involved before the case... The decision was therefore quashed.
- A.
Ex parte Khan
- B.
Ex parte Pinochet Ugart
- C.
Ex parte Smith
Correct Answer
B. Ex parte Pinochet UgartExplanation
The case of ex parte Pinochet Ugart is the correct answer because it involved a judge in the House of Lords who had a close alignment with one of the parties before the case. This alignment suggests a potential bias or conflict of interest, which undermines the fairness and impartiality of the decision. As a result, the decision was quashed, indicating that it was deemed invalid or improper due to the judge's involvement.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
In this case: a conservative minister was involved in a sceme to manipulate the sale of council properties to influence general elections (as - council property tenants are more likely to vote Labour)
- A.
Porter v Magill
- B.
Ex parte Jones
- C.
Ex parte Smith
Correct Answer
A. Porter v MagillExplanation
Porter v Magill is the correct answer because it is a landmark case that dealt with the issue of improper political bias in decision-making. The case established the principle that public officials, including ministers, have a duty to act impartially and avoid any appearance of bias. In this scenario, the conservative minister's involvement in manipulating the sale of council properties to influence elections would be seen as a breach of this duty, as it shows a clear bias towards their own political party.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
Check the relevant boxes: what are the rules of a fair hearing?
- A.
Opportunity to know the case against them
- B.
Opportunity to state their case
- C.
Opportunity to comment on all considered materials
- D.
No communication with the judge without the other parties knowledge
- E.
No communication with competitor law firms
- F.
Must pay all own costs win or lose
Correct Answer(s)
A. Opportunity to know the case against them
B. Opportunity to state their case
C. Opportunity to comment on all considered materials
D. No communication with the judge without the other parties knowledgeExplanation
The rules of a fair hearing include providing the individual with the opportunity to know the case against them, allowing them to state their own case, giving them the chance to comment on all considered materials, and ensuring that there is no communication with the judge without the other parties' knowledge.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 29, 2024Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 08, 2011Quiz Created by
Chriscullen
Back to top