The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions, diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic, and suggestions on further reading. This chapter is about judicial review. This is the means by which the citizen can use the courts to ensure that a public body obeys the law. The questions in the chapter deal with issues such as the erratic development of administrative law; the procedure to apply for judicial review; the right to apply (locus standi), procedural ultra vires; natural justice; and substantive ultra vires.
Chapter
10. Administrative law: judicial review
Chapter
14. Legitimate Expectations
This chapter examines legitimate expectations, how they are formed, and under what circumstances they can be enforced. It explains that, in practice, any legitimate expectations claim will fall into the category of either procedural expectation or substantive claim. The doctrine of legitimate expectations ensures that a public body abides by clear and unequivocal representations that it has made to the claimant. The chapter mentions how the protection of legitimate expectations raises questions about the separation of powers.
Chapter
YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, House of Lords
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, House of Lords. This case is concerned with the identification of public bodies and public functions under s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
3. Duty of care
Further issues
This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.
Chapter
3. Duty of care
Further issues
This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.
Chapter
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case considered under what circumstances a decision-maker could be considered public, or to be exercising a public law function, for the purposes of determining whether that decision-maker was subject to judicial review. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case examines the characteristics of bodies which can be subject to judicial review, exploring whether bodies which are ostensibly private in nature can be subject to judicial review if the nature or consequences of their functions and decisions are public. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
6. Special duty problems: public bodies
This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was or if they assume responsibility in some way for the claimant. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the leading case of Poole Borough Council v GN [2019]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and different types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.
