Administrative Law

Timothy Endicott                                                                                                                    Trinity Term 2002
 
 

Important books:
 

Craig, Administrative Law (4th ed. 1999) ("Craig")
Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law (7th ed. 1994) ("WF") [a bit out of date but still helpful for discussions of main cases and introductions]
Richardson and Genn, Administrative Law and Government Action (1994)
Topics:

1 Delegated Legislation
2 The Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Sovereignty
3 Error of Law
4 Natural Justice; legitimate expectation
5 Control of Discretion
6 Standing and Procedural Exclusivity
7 Ombudsmen
8 Liability of Public Authorities
 
 



1.    Delegated legislation

    Judicial control of delegated legislation raises all of the questions of the role of judges that will be dealt with in the next three tutorials. The Walker case (you can get it at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000406/walker-1.htm) belongs on this weekís work? [why?]

    You should learn about the non-judicial forms of control by reading Craig ch.12 and following references that he gives (at your discretion, but especially Baldwin, Rules and Government 1995).

    On judicial review, read the following cases-- all of them, carefully. At the tutorial Iíll ask one of you to read your essay, and the other(s) to explain the reasons for one or more of these cases.

    Judicial review of rule making

    Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 HL [see WF 453-458]
    McEldowney v Forde [1971] AC 632
    Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91
    R v HM Treasury ex p Smedley [1985] QB 657
    DPP v Hutchinson [1990] 3 WLR 196
    R v SS Environment ex p Nottinghamshire CC [1986] AC 240
    R v SS Environment ex p Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1991] 1 AC 521
    R v Home Secretary ex p Leech [1993] 4 All ER 539
    R v SS Social Security ex p Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1997] 1 WLR 275
    Boddington v British Transport Police [1998] 2 WLR 639

    Essay

    How and why should delegated legislation be controlled? (Make sure you explain what role the courts should play.)

    Discussion Questions:

    Is an act passed under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 delegated legislation?

    What provision is made for securing publicity for delegated and sub-delegated legislation?

    Can delegated legislation be overturned for unreasonableness? If so, is there a special standard of reasonableness?


    2.    The Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers, and Parliamentary Sovereignty
     
     
     
     

    Craig, Chapter 1
     

    Governmental Control of murderers:

       
      Re Findlay [1985] AC 318 HL
      R v SS Home Dept ex p Pierson [1997] 3 WLR 492 HL
      *R v Home Secretary ex p Venables and Thomson [1997] 3 WLR 23
      R v SS Home Dept ex p Hindley [1998] 2 WLR 505 DC
      R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Hindley HL (30/3/00)

      http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000330/hind.htm
       

    Other important cases on the Rule of Law and Judicial Review
       
      R v Home Secretary ex p Pierson [1997] 3 WLR 492 HL, per Lord Steyn at 518-522
      National Federation of Self-employed and Small Business Ltd, [1982] AC 617 ("Fleet Street Casuals"-- see WF 709-712) [weíll discuss this case in more detail later in the term]
      R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779
      R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms [1999] 3 All ER 400
      Jowell, ëThe Rule of Law Todayí in The Changing Constitution
      Laws, 'Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights?' [1993] PL 59
        ëLaw and Democracyí [1995] PL 72
        ëThe Constitution: Morals and Rightsí [1996] PL 622
      Craig, ëFormal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Lawí [1997] PL 467
    Is Parliamentary Sovereignty the Basis of Judicial Review?
       
      Forsyth, "Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review" [1996] CLJ 122
      Craig, "Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review" [1998] CLJ 63
      Ellott, "The Ultra Vires Doctrine in a Constitutional Setting: Still the Central Principle of Administrative Law" [1999 CLJ 129

      [Note the beginning of Lord Wilberforceís speech in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, and compare the beginning of Lord Pearceís speech. Do they offer competing explanations of judicial review?]
       

    Invalidity

    Craig Chapter 20

    Boddington v British Transport Police [1998] 2 WLR 639 [see Craig p. 657]
     

    Essay: "Judicial review is the exercise of the courtís inherent power at common law to determine whether action is lawful or not; in a word to uphold the rule of law." R v Judicial Committee ex p Vijayatunga [1988] 1 QB 322 per Simon Brown J at 343. Discuss. To what extent does the ideal of the rule of law justify the standards of judicial review in English law?

    --

    Discussion:

    Compare the following remark from Wade and Forsyth, 1994 p.301: "If the High Court could not control [excesses of jurisdiction], there would be no means of enforcing the doctrine of ultra vires?in other words, the rule of law. This is the true logical basis of the jurisdictional doctrine and it follows necessarily from constitutional fundamentals."
     


    3.    Error of Law
     

    Craig Chapters 15, 24
    Cranston, "Reviewing Judicial Review", Administrative Law and Government Action Chapter 3
     

    Anisminic to Page

       
      Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] 2 QB 862 (CA), and [1969] 2 AC 147 HL
      Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 CA
      Racal [1981] AC 374
      S.E. Asia Fire Bricks v Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees' Union [1981] AC 363 PC
      O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237, at 275c-276f HL
      R v Greater Manchester Coroner ex p Tal [1985] QB 67 DC
      R v Registrar of Companies ex p Central Bank of India [1986] QB 1114 (appeal of Registrar only) PC
      R v Lord Chancellor ex p Page [1993] AC 682
      R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex p South Yorkshire Transport Ltd. [1993] 1 WLR 23 HL

      Beatson (1984) 4 OJLS 22
      Woolf [1995] PL 57
      Forsyth (1996) 55 Cam LJ 122
      Laws in Judicial Review (Supperstone and Goudie, 2nd ed. 1997) Chap.4
       

    Error of Law and Error of Fact

    Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 HL
    Khawaja v Home Secretary [1984] AC 74 HL

    Endicott, ëQuestions of Lawí (1998) 114 LQR 292
    Yeats, Administrative Law and Government Action Chapter 6
     

    Essay

    "Any error of law made by an administrative tribunal or inferior court in reaching its decision can be quashed for error of law." (Page v. Hull University Visitor per Lord Browne-Wilkinson)

    What is the source of the power Lord Browne-Wilkinson claims? What are its limits?

    Discussion Questions

    In Anisminic, can you think of an error of law that would have been within the Commissionís jurisdiction?

    After Anisminic, the Foreign Compensation Act 1969 provided that a determination included "anything which purports to be a determination" (s.3(3)). Would that have stopped Lord Reid from interfering?

    When can a court interfere with an administrative tribunalís findings of fact? What is the difference between questions of law and questions of fact? Why does it matter?

    On what standard(s!) will a court interfere with another public authorityís findings of fact? ósee Craig pp.488-496


    4.    Natural Justice
     

    Craig ch.14, 15, 19
    Richardson, Administrative Law and Government Action Chapter 5
    Beloff and Elias, ëNatural Justice and Fairnessí in Supperstone and Goudie, Judicial Review (1992)
     

    Bias

       
      Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
      Steeples v Derbyshire CC [1985] 1 WLR 256
      R v Amber Valley DC ex p Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 298
      *R v Gough [1993] 2 WLR 883 HL
      R.v.Inner West London Coroner ex p. Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139 CA
      Locabail UK v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 65 CA


    Right to a hearing

       
      R v Electricity Commissioners [1924] 1 KB 171
      *Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 HL
      Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 HL
      *O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237, at 275c-276f HL
      *CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 ("GCHQ") (and see [1985] PL 186)
      R v Transport Secretary ex p Gwent CC [1988] QB 429
      Al-Mehdawi v Home Secretary [1990] 1 AC 876
      R v Home Secretary ex p Doody [1993] 3 All ER 92


    Legitimate expectations

       
      Craig 611-650 and Appendix 907-8 [** this topic used to be in the Natural Justice section of Craigís text--why has he moved it to the control-of-discretion section?]

      R v Gaming Board of Great Britain ex p Benaim [1970] 2 QB 417
      *R v Liverpool ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet [1972] 2 QB 299
      McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520
      Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 1 WLR 582
      A-G for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629
      GCHQ
      * Re Findlay [1985] AC 318 HL
      R v Home Secretary ex p Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482 at 1484-89 and 1493-99
      R v SS Health ex p U.S.Tobacco [1992] 1 All ER 212
      R v SS Transport ex p Richmond [1994] 1 All ER 577 QB
      R v MAFF ex p Hamble Fisheries [1995] 2 All ER 714 QB
      R v IRC ex p Unilever [1996] STC 681
      R v SS Home Department ex p Hargreaves [1997] 1 WLR 906
      R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority ex p. Coughlan 16 July 1999 --find it at:
      http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgments.nsf/2e7baaf5a21cab02802565590072b4d7/c3e12da1f63048cc802567b000352a21?OpenDocument

      Craig, "Substantive legitimate expectations and the principles of judicial review" in English Public Law and the Common Law of Europe, ed. M. Andenas 1998
      S. Foster, "Legitimate expectations and prisoners' rights" (1997) 60 M.L.R. 727
      Forsyth, [1997] PL 375
       

    A duty to give reasons?

    Padfield [1968] AC 997, 1061-2 HL
    R v Lancashire CC ex p Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941
    R.v.SS Trade and Indus. ex p. Lonrho [1989] 2 All ER 609 HL
    *R.v.SS Home Office ex p. Doody [1993] 3 All ER 92 at 111 HL
    R.v. HEFC ex p. Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 All ER 651
    R v SS Home Department ex p Fayed [1997] 1 All ER 228 [note: the Home Secretary decided that reasons should be given for refusing British citizenship, and withdrew an appeal to the HL from the decision in Fayed-- see [1998] PL 325]
     

    Essay Do both:

    1. "The rules of Natural Justice-- or of fairness-- are not cut and dried. They vary infinitely." (R v Santillo [1981] QB 778) What determines their variation?

    2. What substantive protection does the doctrine of legitimate expectation give?

    Note: You need to be familiar with the types of procedural protection that an applicant for judicial review might seek. When will a court require: an oral hearing? notice of a hearing? notice of the case against the applicant? an opportunity to call witnesses? an opportunity to be represented by counsel? See Craig 425-438.

    Discussion Questions

    "Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process." (Evans at 1173) Is that true? Should it be true?

    Is a hearing available for the

    (a) cancellation of

    (b) renewal of

    (c) initial application for

    a licence?

    Should a general requirement to give reasons be added to the requirements of natural justice?

    Can an authority fetter its discretion by creating a legitimate expectation?

    Did Lord Diplock change the grounds on which judicial review is available in his speech in GCHQ?


    5.    Control of Discretion
     

    Craig Ch.16, 17, 18
     

    Abuse of Discretion
     

      General
        *Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 CA
        *Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 HL
        R v Environment Secretary ex p Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1991] 1 AC 521 HL
        *R v Home Secretary ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 All ER 244 HL
        R v MAFF ex parte First City Trading [1997] 1 CMLR 250 [see esp.278 - 9]
      Improper purpose
         
        *Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 (Lords Pearce and Reid)
        *Wheeler v Leicester CC [1985] AC 1054 (HL plus Browne-Wilkinson LJ in the CA)
        *R v Lewisham LBC ex p Shell (UK) Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 938
        R v SS Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p World Development Movement Ltd. [1995] 1 All ER 61
      Mixed motives
         
        R v ILEA ex p Westminster CC [1986] 1 WLR 28
      Relevant/irrelevant considerations
         
        Prescott v Birmingham Corporation [1955] 1 Ch. 210 CA
        *Bromley LBC v GLC [1982] 1 AC 768 (HL only) ("Fares Fair Case") HL
        R v London Transport Executive ex p GLC [1983] QB 484 DC
        R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission ex p Owen [1985] QB 1153 DC
        Pickwell v Camden LBC [1983] QB 962 DC
        Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
        R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Balchin [1997] JPL 917
      Unreasonableness
         
        *Craig 404-432

        *Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223
        *British Oxygen v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610
        *Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
        R v Home Secretary ex p Pierson [1997] 3 WLR 492 HL
        R v Home Secretary ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL only)
         

      Unfairness
         
        R v IRC ex p Preston [1985] AC 835 (and see (1986) 49 MLR 251) HL
        R v IRC ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545 DC
        R v Home Secretary ex p Pierson [1997] 3 WLR 492 HL
      Fundamental Rights (pre-HRA)
         
        *R v Home Secretary ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL only)
        R v Home Secretary ex p McQuillan [1995] 4 All ER 400 QB
        R v Ministry of Defence ex p Smith [1996] 1 All ER 257 CA (see Norris [1996] PL 590)

        Laws [1993] PL 59, [1995] PL 72
        Sedley [1995] PL 386

        ***On the effect of the Human Rights Act, read Craig Chapter 17 section 7
         

      Proportionality
        Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054 HL
        R v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex p E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd [1985] ECR 2889
        *R v Home Secretary ex p Bentley [1993] 4 All ER 442
        R v Home Secretary ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL)
        R v SS Home Department ex p Hargreaves [1997] 1 WLR 906, [1997] 1 All ER 397
        R v MAFF ex p First City Trading [1997] 1 CMLR 250 per Laws J
        R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traderís Ferry Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 129

        De Burca, ëProportionality and Wednesbury UnreasonablenessÖí in English Public Law and the Common Law of Europe, Andenas ed. (1998)

        Lord Hoffmann, ëThe Influence of the European Principle of Proportionality upon UK Lawí The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of europe Ellis ed (1999)


     

    Essay

    When will a court interfere with an exercise of discretion on the ground that it was unreasonable? How does that differ from interfering on the ground that it was wrong?

    Discussion Questions

    Should the courts give local governments greater leeway than other authorities in the purposes for which they may act? If central government owes no fiduciary duties to taxpayers, why do local authorities owe fiduciary duties to ratepayers? (see Cane pp.155-7)

    Is there a difference between extraneous purposes and improper purposes?

    What test is applied when there is a mixture of (i) proper/improper purposes? (ii) relevant/irrelevant considerations?

    Do the courts play a political role when they control administrative discretion?

    Is the law of control of administrative discretion a matter of statutory interpretation, or common law rules?

    Does that fact that a decision infringes a fundamental human right affect the standard of judicial review? If so, what effect does it matter that the decision also affects national security? [see McQuillan] What is the effect of the ECHR on judicial review?

    Is proportionality a ground for judicial review?
     



     

    6.    Standing and Procedural Exclusivity

    **Note: You need to understand the major prerogative remedies (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) and declarations and injunctions. Read Craig Ch.22.

    Order 53 óAJR Procedure

         
        Craig ch.23

        Law Commission Report No.73, Cmnd 6407; LCCP 226
        Law Commission "Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals" (Consultation Paper No.126, 1993)
        RSC O.53
        Supreme Court Act 1981, s.31

        *O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237

        Woolf [1995] PL 57 at 61-5
         

    Public Bodies and Private Bodies
         
        Law v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1302
        Datafin, supra 4.6
        R v FA ex p FL [1992] 2 All ER 833
        R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909
        R v Lloyds of London ex p Briggs [1993] COD 66
        R v Chief Rabbi ex p Wachmann [1992] 1 WLR 1036
    Public Rights and Private Rights
     
        Davy v Spelthorne BC [1984] AC 262 (HL) per Lord Wilberforce at 278
        Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] AC 461 (HL) (and see Ackner LJ at 465ff, Goff LJ at 480)
        R v East Berkshire HA ex p Walsh [1985] QB 152
        R v Home Secretary ex p Benwell [1985] QB 554
        Avon CC v Buscott [1988] QB 656
        *Roy v Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster FPC [1992] 1 AC 624
        Lonrho Plc v Tebbit [1992] 4 All ER 280 CA
        Mohram Ali v Tower Hamlets LBC [1993] QB 407
        Mercury Telecommunications v. Director General of Telecommunications [1995] Times Feb. 10 HL
        OíRourke v Camden LBD [1998] AC 188 HL
        Dennis Rye [1997] 4 All E.R. 747
        Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA (Lord Woolf MR, Ward LJ, Sedley LJ) 19/4/2000 [ask me for it if you canít find it!]
        Sunkin [1992] PL 102
    Collateral Challenge
         
        Winder, supra
        Boddington v British Transport Police [1998] 2 WLR 639
        R v Wick [1998] AC 92
        Forsyth [1998] PL 364
    Leave
         
        R v Home Secretary ex p Doorga [1990] COD 109
    Delay
         
        R v Stratford-on-Avon DC ex p Jackson [1985] 1 WLR 1319
        R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex p Caswell [1990] 2 AC 738 (HL only)
        R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex p Greenpeace [1998] COD 59 (Laws J)
    Alternative procedures
       
        Cocks v Thanet DC [1983] 2 AC 286
        Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA [1985] 3 WLR 830 (headnote and pp.847-9 only and see Harlow (1986) 49 MLR 768)
        R v Crown Prosecution Service ex p Hogg [1994] The Times, 24 April

        H.W.R.Wade, ëJudicial review and alternative remediesí [1997] PL 589
         

    Standing ó "Sufficient Interest"
     
        Craig Ch.21

        National Federation of Self-employed and Small Business Ltd, [1982] AC 617 ("Fleet Street Casuals")
        R v HM Treasury ex p Smedley [1985] QB 657 at 669-70
        EOC [1993] 1 All ER 1022
        Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540
        R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504
        R.v.SS Foreign Affairs ex p. World Development Movement [1994] 4 All ER 611, [1995] 1 All ER 611 (see 617c-620h)
        R.v.SS Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p. Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 WLR 115


     
     

    Essay

    "Lord Diplockís speech [in OíReilly] was a brilliant judicial exploit, but it turned the law in the wrong direction, away from flexibility of procedure and towards a rigidity reminiscent of the bad old days of the forms of action a century and a half ago." (WF 694)

    Discuss, explaining what, if anything, was brilliant about Lord Diplockís exploit. What have the courts done with it?

    Discussion Questions

    Why wasnít Anisminic an application for judicial review?

    Why was Order 53 introduced? Why was SCA s.31 enacted? How does Order 53 affect the availability of the prerogative remedies?

    What is exclusivity? Is the doctrine a necessary interpretation of Order 53, or could a different view have been taken? (compare Pain Jís reasons at first instance in OíReilly)

    Has European law changed the availability of injunctions in U.K. public law?

    Why do the courts have discretion in awarding public law remedies?
     


    7.    Ombudsmen
     

    Craig Ch.8 sections 3 and 5
    Marshall [1973] PL 32
    Gregory and Hutchesson, The Parliamentary Ombudsman, ch. 8, 14

    Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 22.4-8, 11, 12(3) and Sch.3
            http://www.parliament.ombudsman.org.uk/
     

    R v Local Commissioner for Administration ex p Bradford City Council [1979] QB 287
    *R v Local Commissioner for Administration ex p Eastleigh BC [1988] QB 855
    R v Local Commissioner for Administration ex p Croydon LBC [1989] 1 All ER 1033
    *R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Dyer [1994] 1 WLR 621
    *R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Balchin [1997] JPL 917
        AND Balchin (No.2)! óGet it from me.

    Clothier [1986] PL 204
    Drewry & Harlow (1990) 53 MLR 745
    Marsh [1994] PL 347
    Bradley [1995] PL 345
    Amos, "The P.C.A., redress and damages for wrongful administrative action" [2000] Public Law 21

    Essay

    Discuss the decisions in the Balchin cases, and the reasons for them.

    Discussion questions

    What is good administration? (see Administrative Justice: Some Needed Reforms ch.2) What is maladministration? What is the difference between maladministration, and an unlawful administrative action?

    How do local ombudsmen differ from the PCA in powers and functions? In their place in the constitution?
     
     



     

    8.    Liability of Public Authorities (Contract, Estoppel, Tort, and Restitution)
     

    Government contracts

       
      Craig ch.5
    Tort
       
      Administrative Justice: Some Needed Reforms ch.11

      Nuisance and strict liability

         
        Metorpolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881) 6 AC 183
        Marriage v East Norfolk Rivers Catchment Board [1950] 1 KB 284
        Pride of Derby etc. v. British Celanese Ltd [1953] Ch 149
        Smeaton v Ilford Corp [1954] Ch 450 VS
        Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1980] QB 156 (Lord Denning MR only) and [1981] AC 1001
        Dunne v North Western Gas Board [1964] 2 QB 806 CA
        Department of Transport v North West Water Authority [1984] AC 336 HL
        Cambridge v. Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 1 All ER 53, 75-6
      Negligence
         
        East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1941] AC 74
        Dorset Yacht v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
        Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728
        Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398
        Dunlop v Woollahra MC [1982] AC 158
        Curran v. NI Co-ownership [1987] AC 718 HL
        Rowling v Takaro Props Ltd [1988] AC 473
        Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328 CA
        Ancell v. McDermott [1993] 4 All ER 355 CA
        *X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 3 All ER 353 --and see Caneís note in January 1996 LQR p.13
        *Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 WLR 388
        *Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344
        *Barrett v Enfield [1999] 3 All ER 193 HL ósee casenote, (2000) 116 LQR 40
        W v Essex [2000] 2 WLR 601 HL
        Palmer v Tees Health Authority ósee casenote, (2000) 116 LQR 205
        Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2000] 2 WLR 15

        Amos, "The P.C.A., redress and damages for wrongful administrative action" [2000] Public Law 21
         

      Misfeasance in public office
         
        Roncarelli v Duplessis (1959) 16 DLR 2d 689
        Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158
        Bourgoin v Minister of Agriculture [1986] QB 716
        Kirklees MBC v Wickes Building Supplies [1993] AC 227 at 281
        Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] AC 1228 HL
        Racz v Home Office [1994] 2 WLR 23 HL
        Re McC [1985] AC 528 HL
        Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2000] 2 WLR 15
      Breach of statutory duty

      Winfield and Jolowicz, ch.7
      Buckley (1984) 100 LQR 204
      Matthews (1984) 4 OJLS 429
      Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] AC 1228 HL
      R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex p Hague [1992] 1 AC 58
       

    Restitution
       
      Craig 887-894

      *Woolwich v IRC (No.2) [1992] 3 WLR 366 HL
      WLG v Islington BC [1994] 1 WLR 938
       

    Damages in EC Law
         
        Craig 894-901

        Woolwich, supra
        *Marshall v Southampton and Southwest Hampshire Health Authority [1986] QB 401 (ECJ); (No.2) [1993] 3 WLR 1054 (ECJ)
        Francovich v Italy [1993] 2 CMLR 66 (ECJ)


 

Essay

Discuss the scope of an action for damages in negligence as a remedy in the area of administrative decision-making. How might the law be reformed?