1-20 of 23 Results

  • Keyword: public body x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Public Law Concentrate

10. Introduction to administrative lawThe foundations and extent of judicial review  

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the concept of judicial review. Judicial review allows a High Court judge to examine the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies carrying out their public functions and enactments where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The defendant must be a public body, the subject matter of a claim must be a public law matter, and the claimant must have the right to claim. This chapter also looks at the basis procedure for judicial review.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Concentrate Questions and Answers Public Law

10. Administrative law: judicial review  

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

Cover Casebook on Tort Law

5. Special duty problems: public bodies  

Public bodies have extensive powers to act for the public benefit but often have limited resources. Difficult decisions have to be made, and if those decisions are wholly unreasonable they may be corrected by judicial review; that is, by public law remedies. A more difficult question is whether failure by a public body provides a private right of action to someone harmed (or not benefited) by the decision. While the general principles of duty of care apply (that is, proximity and whether it is fair and just to impose liability), there are several limitations on the liability of public bodies in negligence. This chapter first discusses the special common law principles applicable to the exercise of discretion by public bodies. It then considers specific problematic areas, including the difficulties involved in establishing duties of care by the emergency services before examining the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in establishing obligations owed directly by the state.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, 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 Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords. The underlying substantive issue in this case was the question of whether the Wallbanks were liable to pay for the repair of their local parish church. However, this case note focuses on the definition of public authorities under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public authorities are required to act in accordance with the HRA, and the Wallbanks contended that the Parochial Church Council was a public authority within the meaning of s. 6. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, 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 Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords. The underlying substantive issue in this case was the question of whether the Wallbanks were liable to pay for the repair of their local parish church. However, this case note focuses on the definition of public authorities under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public authorities are required to act in accordance with the HRA, and the Wallbanks contended that the Parochial Church Council was a public authority within the meaning of s. 6. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

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

Cover Public Law Directions

15. Introduction to judicial review  

This chapter looks at the purpose and constitutional significance of judicial review. Where public bodies overreach themselves by acting unlawfully, the judicial review process allows individuals to hold public bodies to account in the courts, ensuring that governmental and public powers are lawfully exercised. This maintains the rule of law by helping to protect the public from the arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of government power. Judicial review is therefore a powerful check and control by the courts on executive action, but it also raises issues of whether the process gives the judiciary too much power over the elected government. There are three preliminary or threshold issues that a claimant needs to satisfy when bringing a judicial review claim. To be amenable to judicial review, the claim must raise a public law matter; it must be justiciable; and the claimant must have standing (locus standi).

Chapter

Cover Public Law

11. Judicial review: access to review and remedies  

This chapter provides an introduction to judicial review and its various features and requirements. It starts by exploring the meaning and purpose of judicial review, explaining the particular functions of the courts and the jurisdiction that justifies their scrutiny of administrative matters. It then sets out the legal basis for judicial review and the process through which applications proceed, which while rooted in statute, has developed incrementally through both case law and the 1998 Woolf Reforms. The chapter considers issues relating to access to review, exploring the legal requirements that must be fulfilled before an application for judicial review can be entertained by the Administrative Court. This includes a discussion of standing, which determines who can bring a claim, and consideration of the issues relating to the public law/private law divide, which concerns against whom a claim can be brought and the matter upon which that claim can be founded.

Chapter

Cover Lunney & Oliphant's Tort Law

9. Negligence: Duty of Care—Omissions and Acts of Third Parties  

Donal Nolan and Ken Oliphant

This chapter examines liability for omissions and for the acts of a third party in negligence. Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances, but no precise categorisation is possible of the various situations in which a duty of affirmative action is recognised. The question of liability for the acts of a third party often overlaps with the question of liability for omissions because in a third-party case the complaint is often of an omission, for example a failure to control a third party, or to prevent a dangerous situation from being sparked off by a third party. But not all third-party cases involve omissions. Sometimes the complaint is simply that the defendant provided the third party with the opportunity or the means to injure the claimant, and it is that conduct which is alleged to be negligent, regardless of whether the defendant unreasonably failed at some subsequent point of time to intervene to prevent the injury. In this chapter, analysis of these issues is book-ended by sections addressing the distinction between acts and omissions, and the reasons for treating the latter differently from the former (I), and the specific question of nonfeasance by public bodies (IV).

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Directions

2. Negligence: duty of care  

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Negligence is a tort in its own right and involves an unintentional wrong as opposed to trespass which involves an intentional wrong. It has three main elements: duty of care (whether the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care), breach (whether the defendant has breached that duty), and damage (whether that breach has caused damage of a legally recognized kind to the claimant). Duty of care is determined by proximity, foreseeability, and policy and is most likely to be established in cases of positive acts which cause physical injury or property damage. This chapter provides an overview of the history of negligence and discusses the function of duty of care in negligence. It also considers the way duty of care has been defined and developed and applies the principles of duty of care in the areas of omissions and liability of public bodies.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Concentrate

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

Cover Tort Law

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.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law

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. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.