Administrative Law - Week 6	Judicial Review Procedure – especially Standing and Exclusivity		Hilary 2002
Introduction	There are new Civil Procedure Rules, and these include a new procedure for judicial review. We also have a new beast called the Administrative Court. Things change! But most of the caselaw and articles are about the old procedures, etc. How do we deal with this? I suppose we have to think first, about how much of the old regime has survived … most of it, probably. Secondly, we might prefer to concentrate on the timeless values and the tensions between them rather than the temporary details of the rules, which may be tweaked further.
The Texts	Craig, Chs. 21,22,23 ; Wade & Forsyth, Chs. 16, 17, 18 & 19 Cane, Chs. 3, 4 & 5 (NB date of CPR 54)
Part 54 (previously Ord 53)	Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 31 Civil Procedure Rules, Part 54 (& PD 54) – www.open.gov.uk/lcd/ *For discussion of Part 54 see *Fordham [2001] Public Law 4
Permission to proceed (previously Leave)	*De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th ed.), pp. 660-672 Le Sueur & Sunkin [1992] Public Law 102; Law Com. 226 (1994), pp. 31-52 Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990] 2 AC 738 R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex p. A [1999] 2 AC 330 (local interest! on delay) R v School Organization Committee, ex p Melton [2001] Admin. Ct. Digest 426 M. Beloff, in C. Forsyth & Hare, The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord, (OUP 1998) - on Time H. W. R. Wade [1997] Public Law 589 - on alternative remedies
Standing	*Craig, (4^th ed., 1999) Ch. 21 or Wade & Forsyth, Ch. 18; Cane, Ch. 3 Cane [1980] Public Law 303; [1990] PL 307; [1995] PL 276 *Cane, Ch 5 in Loveland (ed.), A Special Relationship? Buxton v Minister of Housing & Local Government [1961] 1 QB 278 Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 Barrs v Bethell [1982] Ch 294 *R v IRC, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed [1982] AC 617 R v HM Treasury, ex p. Smedley [1985] QB 657, at 667, 669-670 R v Felixstowe JJ., ex p. Leigh [1987] QB 582, at 595-598 *R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504 *Schiemann [1990] Public Law 342; [1996] Public Law 240 R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p. EOC [1993] 1 All ER 1022 & [1994] 1 All ER 910, H.L. *R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p. Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329 *R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p. World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611, at 617e-620h *R v Somerset CC, ex p. Dixon [1997] Crown Office Digest 322 *R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 All ER 449 *Law Com No. 226, pp. 41-44 (also, 48-51) On Law Com 226 generally, R. Gordon QC [1995] PL 11 *Standing under HRA, Human Rights Act 1998, s. 7(1);
Procedural Exclusivity - Do I Have to Use Part 54?	*O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 Davy v Spelthorne BC [1984] AC 262 *Wandsworth v Winder [1985] AC 461 *Roy v Kensington & Chelsea FPC [1992] 1 AC 624 X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 3 All ER 353, HL especially at p. *369b-e *Mercury v Director General of Communications [1996] 1 All ER 575, HL British Steel Corp v Customs & Excise [1997] 2 All ER 366, CA *R v Wicks [1997] 2 All ER 801, HL *Boddington v British Transport Police [1998] 2 All ER 203, HL (compare Boddington with Wicks) O’Rourke v Camden LBC [1997] 3 All ER 23, HL Trustees of the Dennis Rye Pension Fund v Sheffield CC [1997] 4 All ER 747, CA Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2000] 3 All ER 226, HL Clark v University of Lincolnshire & Humberside [2000] 3 All ER 752, CA [discussed, [2000] JR 178]
Academic Articles on exclusivity	Wade (1985) 101 LQR 180 (Prerogative and civil service employment) Beatson (1987) 103 LQR 34 (Generally, on public / private divide) Fredman & Morris (1991) 107 LQR 298; [1994] Public Law 69 (esp. civil service employment etc.) Oliver [1997] Public Law 630 (Public law values beyond the boundaries of public law procedure)
Reform Proposals (now overtaken?)	Law Commission No. 226, pp. 19-30 & pp. 31-52 (without worrying about 5.16 - 5.22), & pp. 72-79 Gordon [1995] Public Law 11; Woolf Report, Access to Justice (1996), Section IV, Ch. 18, pp. 250-259
Remedies (now renamed)	Craig, ch. 22 *Cane, Ch. 11 in P. Leyland & T. Woods (eds), Administrative Law Facing the Future (1997) Human Rights Act 1998, ss. 4, 7-9, 11-13
Strategic guidance	How to cope with the reading list? There are lots of corners of procedure that you could look at. I recommend concentrating on standing and exclusivity, and being content with a thinner coverage of permission (leave) and the remedies. Thus chs. 21 & 23 of Craig probably deserve most attention. (Feel free to look at other issues if you want.) There are twelve starred cases and five starred articles (one of which is very short). You should probably also aim to read a couple of articles on ‘exclusivity’. That’s quite a lot, but it is what you should aim for as “minimum coverage”. Thereafter, everything’s a ‘bonus’. If you can answer the following questions in a convincing way then you’ll be well set to deal with some of the problems raised by this week’s work: (1) What is the purpose of the permission (leave) stage? (2) Why do we require claimants to show that they have standing? (3) Why might courts want to force certain claimants to use judicial review procedure? (4) If there are good reasons for forcing anyone to use judicial review procedure, then who should be forced to use it?
Essay Title:	“A large number of lawyers would be far poorer if English law had decided that anybody could seek judicial review and that nobody had to seek judicial review if some other procedure was available, but it is difficult to conclude that English law would have been poorer if it had so decided. ” Discuss.
Reading List Week 7		Back to Admin. Law Reading List Index