125:
available in public law. They were the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. As I have shown, they were taken in the name of the sovereign against a public authority which had failed to perform its duty to the public at large or had performed it wrongly. Any subject could complain to the sovereign: and then the King's courts, at their discretion, would give him leave to issue such one of the prerogative writs as was appropriate to meet his case. But these writs, as their names show, only gave the remedies of quashing, commanding or prohibiting. They did not enable a subject to recover damages against a public authority, nor a declaration, nor an injunction. This was such a defect in public law that the courts drew upon the remedies available in private law - so as to see that the subject secured justice. It was held that, if a public authority failed to do its duty and, in consequence, a member of the public suffered particular damage therefrom. he could sue for damages by an ordinary action in the courts of common law: see
28:
176:
The House of Lords held that the prisoners had to make a claim through judicial review, not for breach of statutory duty. The court had jurisdiction to grant the declarations, but the prisoners’ case was solely a claim based on public law. Order 53 (now CPR Part 54) protected public authorities from
124:
In modern times we have come to recognise two separate fields of law: one of private law, the other of public law. Private law regulates the affairs of subjects as between themselves. Public law regulates the affairs of subjects vis-à-vis public authorities. For centuries there were special remedies
157:
187:
as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of ordinary
177:
groundless or delayed attacks by its requirements, so it would be wrong to allow evasion of its limits. When public bodies make contracts, torts or have property disputes, they fall within ordinary ‘private’ law rules. Claims for JR may not be used instead.
145:
287:
315:
301:
151:
415:
163:
127:
465:
104:
QB 425. The defendants applied to have the action struck out, arguing the decisions could only be challenged by applying for judicial review. There was a requirement to be prompt.
479:
367:
329:
453:
441:
218:
139:
137:
A.C. 1004 . Likewise, if a question arose as to the rights of a subject vis-à-vis the public authority, he could come to the courts and ask for a declaration (see
353:
544:
211:
155:
1 W.L.R. 637. And this remedy has been applied right up to the present time in ordinary actions brought without leave: see, for instance,
204:
427:
502:
133:
404:
120:
and the Court of Appeal held that it would be an abuse of process to allow a claim through judicial review.
381:
261:
96:
Convicted prisoners claimed that a decision that they lost remission of their sentences, after a riot in
341:
234:
491:
81:
275:
149:
AC 260 ) or against a local authority: see
Prescott v. Birmingham Corporation Ch. 210 and
8:
237:
265:
158:
Grunwick
Processing Laboratories Ltd. v. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services
393:
371:
196:
431:
469:
251:
77:
53:
117:
85:
43:
538:
180:
97:
100:, was null and void because of breaches of natural justice, as seen in
32:
146:
Pyx
Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government
27:
226:
355:R (Datafin plc) v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers
536:
289:R v Environment Secretary, ex p Rose Theatre Ltd
317:R v Foreign Secretary, ex p World Development
303:Greenpeace Ltd v HM Inspectorate of Pollution
212:
219:
205:
26:
152:Meade v. Haringey London Borough Council
545:United Kingdom constitutional case law
537:
428:Chief Constable of North Wales v Evans
200:
227:Judicial review application sources
13:
112:
14:
556:
503:United Kingdom constitutional law
416:R (Weaver) v London Housing Trust
171:
164:Payne v. Lord Harris of Greenwich
134:Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office
128:Lyme Regis Corporation v. Henley
480:Duncan v Cammell Laird & Co
466:R (Privacy International) v IPT
405:Health and Social Care Act 2008
514:
368:R v Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan
330:R (EOC) v State for Employment
1:
526:
454:R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal
442:R (Khawaja) v Home Secretary
382:Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank
7:
262:R (Wilson) v Prime Minister
192:
107:
10:
561:
131:(1834) 8 Bli.N.S. 690 and
488:
476:
462:
450:
438:
424:
412:
402:
390:
378:
364:
350:
338:
326:
312:
298:
284:
272:
258:
244:
232:
140:Dyson v. Attorney-General
65:
60:
49:
39:
25:
20:
508:
342:R (FBU) v Home Secretary
91:
235:Senior Courts Act 1981
190:
169:
492:UK constitutional law
185:
122:
82:UK constitutional law
276:R (NFSESB Ltd) v IRC
183:said the following:
394:YL v Birmingham CC
248:O'Reilly v Mackman
74:O'Reilly v Mackman
21:O'Reilly v Mackman
498:
497:
84:case, concerning
70:
69:
552:
521:
518:
356:
318:
304:
290:
221:
214:
207:
198:
197:
30:
18:
17:
560:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
550:
549:
535:
534:
529:
524:
519:
515:
511:
499:
494:
484:
472:
458:
446:
434:
420:
408:
398:
386:
374:
360:
354:
346:
334:
322:
316:
308:
302:
294:
288:
280:
268:
254:
240:
228:
225:
195:
188:authorities....
174:
143:1 K.B. 410 and
118:Lord Denning MR
115:
113:Court of Appeal
110:
94:
86:judicial review
66:Judicial review
35:
12:
11:
5:
558:
548:
547:
533:
532:
528:
525:
523:
522:
512:
510:
507:
506:
505:
496:
495:
489:
486:
485:
477:
474:
473:
463:
460:
459:
451:
448:
447:
439:
436:
435:
425:
422:
421:
413:
410:
409:
403:
400:
399:
391:
388:
387:
379:
376:
375:
365:
362:
361:
351:
348:
347:
339:
336:
335:
327:
324:
323:
313:
310:
309:
299:
296:
295:
285:
282:
281:
273:
270:
269:
259:
256:
255:
245:
242:
241:
233:
230:
229:
224:
223:
216:
209:
201:
194:
191:
173:
172:House of Lords
170:
114:
111:
109:
106:
93:
90:
68:
67:
63:
62:
58:
57:
51:
47:
46:
44:House of Lords
41:
37:
36:
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
557:
546:
543:
542:
540:
531:
530:
520:2 AC 237, 255
517:
513:
504:
501:
500:
493:
487:
482:
481:
475:
471:
468:
467:
461:
456:
455:
449:
444:
443:
437:
433:
430:
429:
423:
418:
417:
411:
406:
401:
396:
395:
389:
384:
383:
377:
373:
370:
369:
363:
358:
357:
349:
344:
343:
337:
332:
331:
325:
320:
319:
311:
306:
305:
297:
292:
291:
283:
278:
277:
271:
267:
264:
263:
257:
253:
250:
249:
243:
239:
236:
231:
222:
217:
215:
210:
208:
203:
202:
199:
189:
184:
182:
178:
168:
167:1 W.L.R. 754.
166:
165:
161:A.C. 655 and
160:
159:
154:
153:
148:
147:
142:
141:
136:
135:
130:
129:
121:
119:
105:
103:
99:
89:
87:
83:
79:
76:
75:
64:
59:
55:
52:
48:
45:
42:
38:
34:
29:
24:
19:
16:
516:
478:
464:
452:
440:
426:
419:EWCA Civ 587
414:
392:
380:
366:
352:
340:
328:
314:
300:
286:
274:
266:EWCA Civ 304
260:
247:
246:
186:
181:Lord Diplock
179:
175:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
132:
126:
123:
116:
101:
95:
73:
72:
71:
15:
98:Hull prison
56:, 2 AC 237
527:References
372:EWCA Civ 7
307:EWCA Civ 9
102:St Germain
385:3 WLR 283
321:1 WLR 386
50:Citations
539:Category
345:2 AC 513
293:1 QB 504
193:See also
108:Judgment
61:Keywords
33:HMP Hull
470:UKSC 22
457:UKSC 28
432:UKHL 10
397:UKHL 27
483:AC 624
359:QB 815
333:1 AC 1
279:AC 617
252:UKHL 1
78:UKHL 1
54:UKHL 1
509:Notes
445:AC 74
407:s 145
92:Facts
80:is a
40:Court
490:see
238:s 31
541::
88:.
220:e
213:t
206:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
