• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Judicial Review

Extracts from this document...


Title Page Please read and answer the following question: Under the (fictitious) Local Public Houses and Restaurants Act 2005, a local Licensing Authority may refuse to issue an alcohol licence on grounds specified under section 3 of the Act. Rachel, who has just left her job as a fashion consultant, had applied to her local authority for a licence to serve alcohol at a new restaurant she was in the process of opening, "The Central Pork". The Licensing Authority, also responsible for the licensing of guns and gambling establishments, did not have time to deal with Rachel's application and therefore delegated the task to a sub-committee, made up of 3 local people, Ross, Monica and Joey. On the day the sub-committee was supposed to meet to process applications, Ross was called away to attend a seminar at the local museum and Joey had an audition for a part in a West End play, therefore Monica made the decision herself not to grant the licence. On 19th May 2007, Rachel received a letter simply stating that her application had been refused. She was not informed of the reason why and was not allowed to read the report made by the sub-committee, nor was she able to contact the committee members. Rachel was also told that she would have to wait twelve months before being eligible to make any new application. Rachel wanted to have the restaurant up and running by the summer. ...read more.


A statute may expressly state the purpose, or it can be implied by the court. As the reasons for refusal of a license under section 3 of the Local Public Houses and Restaurants Act 2005 are not known; it is difficult to determine if the Licensing Authority (LA) has acted ultra vires. However Rachael could argue that the LA should not have delegated such an important task out to a sub - committee due to time constraints17. Each case should be dealt with professionally. Furthermore is the sub - committee qualified to make the decisions under s.3 of the Act? Most likely they are not. The LA could also have taken into account irrelevant matters18; perhaps thinking that a fashion consultant will not be able to run a restaurant or serve alcohol. 11. Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768; contrast with Westminster Corporation v London and North West Railway Company [1905] AC 426 12. Vine v National Dock Board [1957] AC 488 13. Carlton v Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 14. Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578; see also R v Somerset County Council ex p Fewings [1995] 3 All ER 20 15. Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054 16. Vine v National Dock Board [1957] AC 488 17. Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 Again however it is not clear, as the question does not give any fact. Likewise as the purpose and functions of the Act are unknown it would be difficult for Rachael to claim improper purpose as the basis for illegality. ...read more.


Even though Monica only had to show her a basic level of fairness33 for her new application; the whole affair seems very harsh on Rachael. Remedies 28. R v Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benhaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417 (gaming case) 29. as explained by Parpworth, Pg 306 (13.67) 30. Dime v Grand Junction Canal (1852); see also ex p Pinochet Ugante [2001] 31. McInnes v Onslow Fane [1978] 3 All ER 211 It is quite clear that Rachael has grounds for claiming JR and can be awarded (if successful) one of the following remedies; a prohibiting order, a mandatory order or a quashing order. Rachael would be seeking a quashing order which would in effect quash the decision against her so that she could re-apply. However the process of JR is not concerned primarily with the individual's outcome, but instead with putting right a wrong decision of procedure from a public body. There is nothing to say that should Rachael re-apply and the correct procedure was followed that she would definitively be given a license for alcohol. She may subsequently be rejected again; legally. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the LA are a public body whose decisions Rachael can challenge using JR. Rachael will claim JR on two grounds; illegality due to the improper delegation of power, and also procedural impropriety for failure to apply natural justice to her case regarding both bias and hear both sides. Rachael will be seeking a quashing order as remedy but as always the decision is that of the courts. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Jurisprudence section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Jurisprudence essays

  1. Is Dworkin a natural lawyer? Before examining the Dworkinian perspective, it is important to ...

    morality shares as a common denominator within the positivist and natural lawyers view, should instead be replaced by a one system conception of law and morality.

  2. An Introduction to the Law of Intellectual Property

    These works are protected irrespective of their form of expression, their quality and purpose for which they are created. Uncopyrightable Works Not all works are protectable. Section 7 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 1999 lists down the works which are not protected.

  1. Essay on how judges decide cases

    But the law was uncertain: the rules of testamentary succession provided no applicable exception. So, on the face of it, the murderer should have a right to get his money. The New York court held, however, that the application of the rules was subject to the principle that 'no man should profit from his own wrong'.

  2. 'The Human Rights Act 1998 was no doubt intended to strengthen the rule of ...

    for hauliers who allowed persons to gain illicit entry to the UK, was held to be incompatible with the Convention. But even when the rare occasion occurs and a declaration is issue the constitutional order is not offended. The legislation goes back to the Minister responsible; who may amend it so that it is complies with the Convention s.10.

  1. Libertarian Welfare Rights. An Inquiry into the Coherence of Some Common Libertarian Commitments

    This is the only way states can be legitimate in our imperfect world.lxi The second premise of the Welfare Rights Argument does imply that states can be obligated to fix problems they did not create. A state may not be responsible for the fact that some people do not secure basic reasoning and planning capacities.

  2. Jurisprudence - Conjoined Twins - Evaluate the contention that the Court of Appeals determination ...

    the only presiding Judge to believe that the operation was also in Mary?s best interests. He highlighted the welfare principle under the Children Act 1989 Section 1 (1) ?the child?s welfare shall be the courts paramount consideration?.[37] He immediately brought to the forefront two important, yet some would say obvious questions.

  1. In this essay I am going to discuss Lord Woolfs statement in his interim ...

    4 Marc Galanter Why the ?Haves? Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change P27 5 More Civil Justice? The impact of the Woolf reforms on pre-action behaviour As the system stands today must have been a big difference to the way it was during the time of

  2. Offences Against the Person. Case note regarding R. v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212.

    matter and does the consent shown by the appellants was a shield to their exercises? The Lord Templeman who constituted that the appeal must be dismissed based his opinion on the fact that the violence that was used by the group members could not be grouped as the ?lawful activity?[6] because it included violence.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work