Administrative Law Quiz

A public body cannot act beyond the scope of its legal powers.

A decision-maker must correctly understand and apply the law that governs their actions.

A decision-maker fails to consider a relevant factor when making a decision.

A decision-maker takes into account an irrelevant factor when making a decision.

A decision-maker acts in a way that is procedurally unfair or biased.

When the decision-maker has acted in excess of their powers.

A decision-maker's actions are closely connected to their legal powers, even if not explicitly mentioned in the law.

A decision-maker's actions directly relate to their legal powers, staying within the defined boundaries.

A principle in statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to infringe fundamental rights without clear authorization.

The court's power to overturn a decision was only allowed if that decision related directly to the authority that made the decision.

A decision has to be overturned if it's based on a mistake about the law.

The decision would have been different if not for the legal mistake.

The courts are hesitant to review a decision solely based on an error of interpretation in a specific system, like university statutes.

A decision can't be overturned based on an error of law if Parliament has clearly said a judge's initial decision is final.

The courts won't review the legal decisions made by higher courts, like the High Court, because they are already the highest level.

An error of law that arises when a decision-maker uses a phrase or term with multiple possible meanings.

A type of error of fact where a decision-maker's power to make a decision depends on a specific factual finding. This is the foundation for the decision.

A specific fact that must be true before the decision-maker is allowed to act

This type of error occurs if there's not a single piece of evidence to support a fact presented as true.

An error that occurs when a decision-maker is completely unaware of or misinterprets a known fact, such as a law or previous decision.

The courts are now more likely to review decisions based on incorrect facts, even if they were made by executive branches.

A decision-maker's actions are unlawful if the decision is based on a factual error that affects the legal power to make the decision.

A decision-maker's actions are unlawful if they make a decision based on no evidence at all.

A decision-maker's actions are unlawful if they make a decision based on a mistaken fact that unfairly affects the outcome.

A court may review a local authority's decision to compulsorily purchase land if the decision-maker mistakenly believed that the land was not parkland, and this error means they lacked the power to make the decision.

A court may review a decision if there is a factual error about whether a person is an 'illegal entrant', which is essential for the legal power to detain them.

This grounds of review is based on ensuring fairness. A mistake of fact is reviewable if it caused some form of unfairness.

A mistake of established fact must be objectively verifiable and uncontentious, meaning it's clear and can be proven.

A mistake of established fact must not be the fault of the person challenging the decision, and must be something the decision-maker did wrong.

A mistake of established fact must have been a significant factor in the decision-maker's reasoning, even if it isn't the only factor.

A decision-maker's actions are unlawful if the mistake of fact played a material part in their reasoning, even if it wasn't the sole factor.

Factors that must not be considered by decision-makers when making a decision.

Factors that a decision-maker can consider if they believe those factors are relevant. These factors are not mandatory.

A decision-maker's actions are judged by the courts in accordance with the law.

Failure to take into account a mandatory factor can make a decision unlawful.

In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson, the Home Secretary's decision to set unusually long minimum sentences for two young boys convicted of murder was quashed because he considered irrelevant factors, such as public outrage.

In Roberts v Hopwood, the local authority's decision to increase wages for low-wage workers was deemed unlawful because they didn't consider the interests of the ratepayers.

In R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry, the court upheld the local authority's consideration of its own financial resources as a relevant factor in providing services to a disabled person.

In R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy, the council's decision to reduce home tuition for a child due to financial constraints was quashed because it failed to prioritize the child's educational needs.

A decision-maker must use their powers for the purpose for which they were given.

In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, the Minister's refusal to refer a complaint was deemed unlawful because he used his power to avoid potential embarrassment.

Sometimes, the purpose of a statutory power is explicitly stated, while in others, the court must determine the purpose by interpreting the law.

Every law must be interpreted and applied by decision-makers.

A legal principle that allows government ministers to delegate their decision-making powers to officials within their department, even if the statute does not explicitly say so.

The official who receives delegated power is deemed to step into the minister's shoes and act in their name. However, the minister remains accountable to Parliament for the decisions made.

The Carltona principle was originally applied to central government but has been extended to other public office holders, such as police chiefs, where delegation is essential for the effective operation of their roles.

The official exercising delegated power should be of sufficient seniority to handle the nature of the decision, ensuring accountability and responsibility.

A ground of judicial review where a court may intervene if a public body's decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to it.

The Wednesbury test is used to determine if a decision is so unreasonable that it can be overturned by the courts.

A public body's decision can be challenged if it acted unreasonably, even if it followed a correct legal process and considered relevant factors.

A public body is considered to have 'fettered' its discretion when its actions restrict its ability to exercise its discretionary powers properly. This can occur when it decides not to exercise its power at all, as exemplified in the Fire Brigades Union case where the Home Secretary decided not to implement a statutory scheme.

Policies themselves are not inherently problematic, but courts will not allow a decision-maker to impose rigid policies that pre-determine outcomes and prevent them from considering individual factors. This means they need to be flexible and open to exceptions based on individual circumstances.

The British Oxygen case established that while public bodies can have policies, those policies should not be applied inflexibly, and the body should demonstrate consideration of individual cases. Conversely, the Collymore case illustrates that a policy that is consistently applied inflexibly, without room for individual consideration, can be deemed a fettering of discretion.

When a public body has the legal power to make decisions, it cannot delegate that responsibility to another body or individual. This prevents decision-makers from shifting accountability and ensuring that the original body remains responsible for their decisions.

Exceptions to the rule against delegation occur when explicitly authorized by statute. For instance, a statute might grant the power to delegate certain decisions under specific conditions.

The principle that a decision-maker's actions should be proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve. It involves a more detailed and precise analysis than the Wednesbury test.

A more rigorous standard of review that considers whether a decision is necessary, appropriate, and the least intrusive way to achieve the desired outcome.

The view that the Wednesbury test is too lenient and allows for decisions that are not sufficiently proportionate. It suggests that proportionality should be the standard test for judicial review in domestic cases.

The court's intervention when a decision-maker fails to consider a relevant factor or considers an irrelevant factor, leading to an unfair or unreasonable outcome.

A decision-maker must correctly understand and apply the law that governs their actions. If they make a mistake about the law, their decision might be unlawful.

A decision is considered unreasonable if it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have reached it.

The court focuses on whether the decision is one that a reasonable authority could have reached, considering the specific circumstances.

This class of unreasonableness focuses on defects in the decision-making process itself, even if the decision was legally valid.

The court reviews if relevant factors were wrongly weighed against each other, leading to a biased or unbalanced decision.

The court examines if the decision-making process lacks a clear and consistent chain of reasoning, making it appear illogical.

Decision-makers are expected to make adequate enquiries before reaching a decision, ensuring a thorough understanding of all relevant issues.

The court assesses if the decision-maker has failed to consider and take into account all relevant legal factors.

The decision-maker has taken into account irrelevant factors that shouldn't have influenced their decision.

The decision-maker's actions were unreasonable because they did not properly consider all relevant factors, including the impact on the travellers and the consequences of leaving them without housing.

The court found that the decision to appoint prominent loyalist members to the Parades Commission was unreasonable because it undermined the Commission's impartiality.

The Secretary of State's decision to order a fresh inquiry after a failed attempt to hear an objector's evidence was deemed unreasonable.

The court determined that the decision to refuse adoption to a couple based on concerns about the husband's health was not unreasonable, considering the potential impact on the children.

The court determined that the health authority's policy towards gender reassignment surgery was unreasonable because it unfairly restricted access to this service.

This type of unreasonableness involves decisions that violate fundamental constitutional principles, such as the right to equality or freedom of expression.

This broad category encompasses various grounds for review, focusing on the potential for a decision to be flawed due to procedural irregularities or a lack of proper process.

A standard of judicial review where courts are more likely to intervene in decisions that affect fundamental rights.

A standard of judicial review where courts are less likely to intervene in decisions concerning political matters or high policy, considering them to be within the domain of elected officials.

A principle that requires courts to examine decisions affecting fundamental rights with heightened scrutiny to ensure they are not flawed.

A case where the court refused to intervene in a health authority's decision to deny a child additional medical treatment for leukaemia due to budget constraints, highlighting the courts' reluctance to interfere in resource allocation.

A case where the court found that the minister had acted irrationally in designating Pakistan as a country with no persecution risk, despite evidence to the contrary, demonstrating that even high policy can be subject to judicial review.

A case where the court applied a heightened standard of scrutiny to a decision regarding a homosexual person's discharge from the armed forces, recognizing the interplay of fundamental rights and military policy.

A case where the court applied a strict level of scrutiny to a decision concerning a woman denied life-saving treatment, emphasizing the importance of individual life and the potential life-or-death consequences of decisions.

A case where the court upheld the Ministry of Defence's policy on homosexuality in the armed forces, demonstrating that even with heightened scrutiny, decisions can be lawful.

The act that introduced proportionality as a legal test for judicial review in cases involving human rights.

A principle where the court is reluctant to interfere in decisions made by elected officials, considering such decisions to be within their political discretion.

A decision is considered 'Wednesbury unreasonable' when it's so unreasonable no reasonable authority could have reached it. This standard focuses on the decision's content, not the process.

This principle states that a public body can't act beyond the scope of its legal powers. It ensures that decision-makers stay within their authorized boundaries.

The courts will scrutinize decisions affecting fundamental rights (e.g., freedom of speech) more closely than decisions related to general policy matters (e.g., tax laws).

The level to which the courts will examine a decision made by a public body. It's a spectrum, with decisions involving fundamental rights receiving more scrutiny compared to broader, policy-related decisions.

When a court reviews a decision to see if it was based on a mistake about the law. It's important to remember that courts are reluctant to overturn decisions on mere errors of law.

A decision is 'unreasonable' if it contradicts constitutional principles like certainty and consistency. This means that decisions should not be arbitrary and should treat everyone equally.

This principle highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors when making a decision. Ignoring vital factors can lead to an unreasonable decision.

This principle looks at whether a public body used its powers for the intended purpose. Using those powers for an unintended reason is considered improper.

The courts are careful when reviewing decisions that involve broad, complex policy questions. This is because they defer to the knowledge and experience of the elected officials responsible for shaping those policies.

This is when a government minister can delegate their decision-making powers to specific officials within their department. It allows for smooth functioning and efficiency, but the minister remains accountable for the actions of their delegates.

These grounds of review focus on potential errors of law made during the decision process. Courts may overturn a decision if it was based on a wrong interpretation of the law.

This ground of review centers around errors of fact - when decision-makers make mistakes about the truth of the facts, which ultimately affect the soundness of their decision.

A decision is considered 'unreasonable' if it goes against basic principles of fairness. For example, if a decision is biased or treats people unfairly, it could be challenged on this ground.

These factors, when considered in a decision, can make it unlawful. They represent limitations on a decision-maker's discretion and must be taken into account.

These factors are within the decision-maker's discretion. They are not required but can be considered if deemed relevant to the specific situation.

A decision is considered irrational if there is no logical or reasonable basis for it. This means the decision-maker didn't consider relevant factors, used flawed reasoning, or made a decision that seems to be based on something other than a rational process.

This principle requires decision-makers to gather enough relevant information to make a rational decision. They have to understand the situation properly before making a decision.

A decision is considered oppressive if it imposes unfair hardship or excessively infringes on rights without a good reason. It's like being punished too heavily for something minor.

This important case involved a challenge to the Treasury's decision to prohibit all UK financial institutions from dealing with Bank Mellat, based on its alleged connections with Iran's nuclear program. The court found the Treasury's action to be unlawful because it was irrational, arbitrary, and disproportionate.

This case involved a challenge to the Parole Board's decision to release John Worboys, a convicted rapist. The court found that the board's failure to follow up on evidence of further criminal offending was irrational, despite not finding fault with their initial hearing.

This case involved a dispute between the Education Secretary and a local authority over educational selection. It set out the principle that decision-makers must take reasonable steps to understand all relevant information before making a decision.

The court established the principle that the 'Tameside duty' is about rationality, not process. It shouldn't be used to force a decision-maker to consult with the public without a valid reason.

This involved a challenge to the Lord Chancellor's decision regarding criminal legal aid. He was found to have failed to conduct proper financial modeling before making his decision.

This case involved a local authority banning Leicester Rugby Club from playing their matches. The club had players who intended to participate in an unofficial tour of South Africa during the apartheid regime. The court found that the ban was an unfair use of power.

This landmark case established the concept of 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. It sets the standard for reviewing decisions that are so unreasonable that they can be considered unlawful.