Podcast
Questions and Answers
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
- The courts have described a public body acting beyond the boundaries of its statutory powers as acting ‘outside the four corners of the Act’.
- In Attorney General v Fulham Corporation the court held that the local authority had acted ultra vires when it used a power, allowing it to establish washhouses for residents to do their laundry, to instead provide a service where residents paid the local authority to do the laundry for them.
- A public body will have acted ultra vires where it used a power to do something that was not authorised by that power, unless it can be shown that the action in question was reasonably ancillary to the power.
- In the case of ex parte Witham, the court was satisfied that the court fee was lawful, as there was a clear power in the relevant statutory instrument, allowing the Lord Chancellor to increase court fees as he saw fit. (correct)
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
- Precedent facts were the first form of error of fact to be recognised by the courts. They will always be reviewable in principle whereas the courts will often decline to intervene in no evidence and established fact errors.
- In assessing whether there has been an error of law, the courts are unlikely to intervene where the legislative wording in question is so broad and imprecise that it is capable of bearing different meanings. (correct)
- The courts will not review a potential error of law if there is even the slightest lack of clarity in the relevant statutory provision.
- Precedent facts were the first form of error of fact to be recognised by the courts. They will always be reviewable in principle whereas the courts will often decline to intervene in no evidence and established fact errors.
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
- The current test, applied by the courts for assessing errors of established fact, can be found in the case of Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC. (correct)
- In ex parte Khawaja the court found that it could review the alleged error of fact in order to ascertain whether the applicant was an ‘illegal entrant’ and therefore, whether the power to detain him arose in the first place.
- In the case of GCHQ Lord Diplock said that, by illegality, he meant that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it.
- In Anisminic and ex parte Page the courts confirmed that all errors of law would in principle be subject to judicial review.
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
Which one of the following statements is incorrect?