ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
1. O'Reilly v
The appellants were all prisoners. They wished to challenge decisions
Mack- man
reached by the prison's Board of Visitors in relation to allegations that
[1983]
the appellants had committed breaches of the Prison Rules 1964.
However, instead of using judicial review under Order 53, they instead
went by way of ordinary proceedings begun by writ.
Lord Diplock:
Before the amendments made to Order 53 in 1977 (whereby CPR part 54
was brought in), it would not be an abuse of process by the court to
proceed under normal proceedings.
However, the 'general rule' now is that it is an abuse of process for
public law actions to be taken to a private court (though there may be
exceptions, such as where the public law issue only arises as a
collateral issue in a claim which is otherwise one focused on a private
law right, or where none of the parties objects to the adoption of the
private procedure).
2. Clark v
Universi- ty of The claimant was a student at the defendant university. For her final exam,
Lincolnshire & the claimant submitted a paper which the examiners failed for
Humberside plagiarism. In 1998, the claimant brought proceedings against the
[2000] university for breach of contract, claiming that it had misconstrued the
meaning of plagiarism. The university contended that, in any event, the
she should have brought proceedings for judicial review.
Sedley LJ:
He said that 'the ground has shifted considerably since 1982'. Lord
Woolf says that Diplock's conclusion in O'Reilly was only a 'general rule',
and that 'courts today will be flexible in their approach'. The main point,
the court here thinks, is that parties should not be able to obtain
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
procedural advantages Procedure Rules were introduced in 1998, this is no longer such a
through their mode of problem. Therefore, in this case, the claim in contract is allowed.
claim. But since the Civil
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
3. R v IRC ex p. Thousands of casual workers on Fleet Street, supported by the unions,
National gave false names and addresses so that it was impossible for the IRC
Federa- tion of to collect income tax from them. When the IRC found out, the
Self-Em- agreement they proposed was that if
ployment a new arrangement was generally accepted by the unions, the
[1982] (Fleet
investigation into tax lost in certain previous years would not be
Street Ca-
carried out. The federation who represented the self-employed and small
suals)
businesses applied for judicial review of the IRC's otter, and claimed a
declaration that the IRC acted unlawfully in granting the amnesty and an
order of mandamus directed to the IRC to assess and collect income-
tax from the casual workers.
Lord Wilberforce (for the majority):
He noted that what constitutes 'suflcient interest' for ditterent remedies is
ditter- ent.
It's true that a sense of fairness as between one taxpayer and
another is an important objective, but that argument was not strong
enough in this case. As a result, the federation's claim was
dismissed.
In the minority reasoning, Lord Diplock thought that the federation did
have suflcient interest since 'it would 'be a grave lacuna in our system
of public law
if a pressure group, like the federation [...] were prevented by outdated
4. R v Environ- technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the
ment attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful
Secretary
conduct stopped'.
The remains of a historical theatre were discovered in London. A trust
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
company was set up with the object of preserving the remains for public viewing. The
ex p Rose Theatre company applied to the Environment Secretary for the theatre to be
listed in the
Trust Schedule of Monuments. However, they declined this request since.
[1990] The Trust applied for judicial review of this decision. The applicant here
argues that since anyone can make representations to the Secretary of
State, this means Parliament recognised that everyone has an interest
in the preservation of monument con- sidered to be of national
importance, and therefore, the court should recognise
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
1. O'Reilly v
The appellants were all prisoners. They wished to challenge decisions
Mack- man
reached by the prison's Board of Visitors in relation to allegations that
[1983]
the appellants had committed breaches of the Prison Rules 1964.
However, instead of using judicial review under Order 53, they instead
went by way of ordinary proceedings begun by writ.
Lord Diplock:
Before the amendments made to Order 53 in 1977 (whereby CPR part 54
was brought in), it would not be an abuse of process by the court to
proceed under normal proceedings.
However, the 'general rule' now is that it is an abuse of process for
public law actions to be taken to a private court (though there may be
exceptions, such as where the public law issue only arises as a
collateral issue in a claim which is otherwise one focused on a private
law right, or where none of the parties objects to the adoption of the
private procedure).
2. Clark v
Universi- ty of The claimant was a student at the defendant university. For her final exam,
Lincolnshire & the claimant submitted a paper which the examiners failed for
Humberside plagiarism. In 1998, the claimant brought proceedings against the
[2000] university for breach of contract, claiming that it had misconstrued the
meaning of plagiarism. The university contended that, in any event, the
she should have brought proceedings for judicial review.
Sedley LJ:
He said that 'the ground has shifted considerably since 1982'. Lord
Woolf says that Diplock's conclusion in O'Reilly was only a 'general rule',
and that 'courts today will be flexible in their approach'. The main point,
the court here thinks, is that parties should not be able to obtain
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
procedural advantages Procedure Rules were introduced in 1998, this is no longer such a
through their mode of problem. Therefore, in this case, the claim in contract is allowed.
claim. But since the Civil
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
3. R v IRC ex p. Thousands of casual workers on Fleet Street, supported by the unions,
National gave false names and addresses so that it was impossible for the IRC
Federa- tion of to collect income tax from them. When the IRC found out, the
Self-Em- agreement they proposed was that if
ployment a new arrangement was generally accepted by the unions, the
[1982] (Fleet
investigation into tax lost in certain previous years would not be
Street Ca-
carried out. The federation who represented the self-employed and small
suals)
businesses applied for judicial review of the IRC's otter, and claimed a
declaration that the IRC acted unlawfully in granting the amnesty and an
order of mandamus directed to the IRC to assess and collect income-
tax from the casual workers.
Lord Wilberforce (for the majority):
He noted that what constitutes 'suflcient interest' for ditterent remedies is
ditter- ent.
It's true that a sense of fairness as between one taxpayer and
another is an important objective, but that argument was not strong
enough in this case. As a result, the federation's claim was
dismissed.
In the minority reasoning, Lord Diplock thought that the federation did
have suflcient interest since 'it would 'be a grave lacuna in our system
of public law
if a pressure group, like the federation [...] were prevented by outdated
4. R v Environ- technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the
ment attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful
Secretary
conduct stopped'.
The remains of a historical theatre were discovered in London. A trust
,ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES QUESTIONS &
DETAILED COMPLETE SOLUTIONS PASSED
RATED 100% CORRECT
company was set up with the object of preserving the remains for public viewing. The
ex p Rose Theatre company applied to the Environment Secretary for the theatre to be
listed in the
Trust Schedule of Monuments. However, they declined this request since.
[1990] The Trust applied for judicial review of this decision. The applicant here
argues that since anyone can make representations to the Secretary of
State, this means Parliament recognised that everyone has an interest
in the preservation of monument con- sidered to be of national
importance, and therefore, the court should recognise
