|
Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972)
|
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – procedural requirements]
Held: providing the statute stated that there must be
consultation - there is no requirement otherwise. However, there is no
requirement to do any more than ask for the consulted parties' views - they can be ignored.
|
|
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation
|
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the courts – unreasonableness]
D wanted to restrict
cinema access to children to improve school attendance
Held: The local authority had not acted unreasonably or
ultra vires in imposing the condition.
Unreasonable test
explained by Lord Greene has become a test in many areas of law
|
|
Bailey v
Williamson (1873) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – procedural requirements]
Held: The duty to lay before
Parliament is directory.
|
|
Customs
and Excise v Cure & Deeley (1962) |
[Delegated Legislation – limits of enabling
act]
Finance Act 1940 gave Customs and Excise power to
make any law they wanted. This was wrong as it gave a government department
more power than Parliament
|
|
DPP v
Hutchinson (1990) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – defence to a charge]
Greenham Common women defended charges on the
grounds that bye-laws should not have been made on common land
|
|
Kruse v
Johnson (1898) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts]
The meaning of unreasonableness was
laid down.
Per Lord Russell:
"[that by-laws should be]
"benevolently" construed. A by-law would be
unreasonable "for instance, [if] they were found to be partial and
unequal in their operation as between different classes; if they were
manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved oppressive
or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could
find no justification in the minds of reasonable men, the court might well
say, 'Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are
unreasonable and ultra vires.' A by-law is not unreasonable merely
because judges may think that it goes further than is prudent or necessary or
convenient, or because it is not accompanied by a qualification or an
exception which some judges may think ought to be there."
|
|
Lee v SS
for Education (1967) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – procedural impropriety]
Reasonable notice" of
change not given to Enfield Grammar School (given 5 days).
|
|
Nash v
Finlay (1901) QBD |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – lack of certainty]
"Not to annoy passengers in street", not
specific enough.
|
|
Parker v Bournemouth Corp (1902) QBD
|
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – Wednesbury Unreasonableness]
Hawking ban unlawful because agreement viz. Contract with LA may be unreasonable.
The case related to the prohibition of stalls on the
foreshore.
|
|
R (on
the application of Bennion) v Chief Constable of the
Merseyside Police 2001 CA |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the courts – Natural
justice—Bias]
A Chief Constable could properly adjudicate in
disciplinary charges brought against an officer in his force notwithstanding
that he was the respondent to proceedings brought by that officer in an
employment tribunal.
|
|
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech [1993] CA |
^[Delegated Legislation supervision of the courts –
ultra vires]
The
applicant, a prisoner, applied for judicial review of r 33(3)
of the Prison Rules 1964 which allowed a prison governor to read every
letter to or from a prisoner and stop any letter that was objectionable or
of inordinate length. unless it was between a prisoner who was a party to
proceedings and his legal adviser.
The question
was were the rules
ultra vires of the Prison Act 1952, which authorised the making of
rules.
Held:
The more fundamental the right interfered with by a rule and the more
drastic the interference, the more difficult it was to imply such a
rule-making power.
A prisoner’s
right of access to a solicitor for advice as to instituting proceedings was
an inseparable part of his right of access to the court.
The rule
created a substantial impediment to the exercise of the right to unimpeded
access to the courts and to a solicitor for advice as to instituting
proceedings.
Steyn LJ said:
"The authorised intrusion must ... be the minimum
necessary to ensure that the correspondence is in truth bona fide legal
correspondence."
Declaration that r 33(3) was ultra vires granted |
|
R v
Secretary of State for Health, ex parte U. S. Tobacco International Inc
(1992) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – procedural requirements]
A ban on oral snuff was held
illegal, as during the consultation process the company was not given the
scientific grounds on which the ban was made.
Held: unfair consultation
process can lead to the instrument being quashed.
|
|
R v
Sheer Metalcraft Ltd (1954) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – procedural requirements]
Held: A statutory
instrument was valid despite non-compliance with the publication
requirements. The duty to publish is
directory.
|
|
R v SS
(ex parte US Tobacco)(1990) |
[Delegated Legislation
supervision of the courts – procedural impropriety]
‘Skull bandits’ given public money to build factory then Health Authority
banned product.
|
|
R v Wood
(1855) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – by-laws]
Removal of dust, ashes, and rubbish - could not
include snow.
|
|
Staden v
Tarjanyi (1980) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the
courts – by-laws]
By-law quashed for uncertainty. The by-law made it
unlawful to fly a glider "in the pleasure ground".
Held: uncertain because it
must mean in or over, but for it to mean this there must be "some lower
level below which the glider must not fly."
|
|
Strickland v
Hayes [1896] QBD
 |
^[Delegate legislation - by-laws - supervision of the
courts - by-laws severable - by-law uncertain - by-law
ultra vires]
A
by-law prohibiting profane or obscene songs contained the words “shall conduct
himself in a proper, civil and decorous manner at all times” These words
fell in the same class and are uncertain as to the standard required.
The by-law also purported to prohibit, the use of obscene language ‘in any
street or public place or on land adjacent thereto’, the last words ‘on land
adjacent thereto’ were beyond the power of the county council.
Lindley LJ said:
‘I have no doubt whatever that
those words are bad. But that being so, is the rest of the bylaw bad?
There is plenty of authority for saying that if a bylaw can be divided,
one part may be rejected as bad while the rest may be held to be good. In
the present case there is, I think, no difficulty whatever in severing the
bylaw. If the words “on any land adjacent thereto” are omitted, the rest
of the bylaw reads quite grammatically. The bylaw is, therefore,
distinctly severable.’
The by-law was held to be uncertain and the court held
the whole byelaw invalid.
|
|
Tagg, R v (Heather Susan) 2001 (CA) |
[Delegated Legislation supervision of the courts – by-laws]
The Air Navigation Order (No. 2) 1995 Art.57 was not
ultra vires because intoxication was one kind of conduct which could
adversely affect the safety of an aircraft and thus there was vires within
the Civil Aviation Act 1982 s.63(3)(h) to prohibit such behaviour.
Further, as the issue of T's intoxication was a matter for the jury, the
judge's use of the dictionary definition could not be
faulted.
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
|
