Definition of JR Six Preliminary requirements for any JR action Defining a ‘public body’
- JR is the method by which 1. Amenability to JR – only applies to public bodies -
R v Panel of Take – overs and Mergers ex parte Datafin -
2. Time limit – within three months the public function test was established. Court held that
courts review the legality of JR could be extended to bodies that exercise a public
an executive decision and 3. Applicant must establish that they have standing (locus
Time limit
function and perform public duties, even if they are not a
standi)
hold the executive ‘core’ public body. Courts will consider the source of
4. Procedural exclusivity – public law matters should only - Civil Procedure
power being Rules (CPR ) Part 54.5 (1) (b) – a claim for JR
exercised.
accountable for its decisions.
be challenged by JR must be brought promptly
- The principles established and in within
Datafin3 months.
were considered in
It enables courts to ensure 5. Exhaustion of alternative remedies before starting a Requirement
the case forofpromptness
R v Jockey Clubdoes ex violate
parte Aga artKhan
. 6 ECHR (Lam v
in which
that public bodies do not claim for JR Aga Khan’s horse was disqualified from racing after failing
UK)
exceed their powers and are 6. Ouster clauses - CPR , part a drug test(a)
3.1(2) and–AgatheKhan
courtsought JR for the
can extend thecommittees
time limit. CA
not acting ulta vires (beyond decision. The relationship between the
– if there is an exceptional reason ( R v Dairy Produce club and its Quota
MUST MEET ALL PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS members was a private law matter because it derived
their powers) Tribunal ex parte Caswell)
from voluntary agreement – Aga Khan did have private
law remedies. The court held that the jockey club was
Standing not subject to JR because ‘neither in its framework nor its
Judicial review – principles and preliminaries
Can a private body be amenable to JR? rules nor its functions does It fulfil a governmental role’’.-
- S 31 (3) SCA 1981
not a public body. Does not affect wider public.
states that ‘’ the court
- R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Market illustrates that private bodies are amenable - Rto JR if they
v Chief perform
Rabbi a public function.
, ex p Wachmann Beerthat
illustrates wasreligious
shall not grant refused to participate in the Farmers Market Programme organised by the Hampshire Farmers
bodies can notMarket and this
be subject decision
to JR. was held
The court amenable to
that the
permission unless it JR under s6 of the HRA even though it is a private company. This is because the company which regulated the market exercised
Rabbis decision to exile Wachmann from Judaism on the a public
considers that the function because it was set up by the county council (public authority) and continued to carry
ground out responsibilities
of adultery could not bethat the county
subject council
to JR because
applicant has sufficient had previously done. religious organisations are not regulated by the
interest in the matter to - R V Servite Houses and Wandsworth ex parte Goldsmith – held that private care providers
government. are Thus,
not subject to JR because
the decision does not their relationship
neither have a
which the application is commercial and they are not under a statutory obligation to provide accommodation so therefore
governmental not exercising
interest/ a public
public interest function
because in theis
interest
relates’’ provision of accommodation for the elderly.. Contrast to R (A) V Partnerships in Care where itmotivated
religiously was held inthat
thisthe private
case as thecompany providers
body carries out
- CPR 54 – claimant must decision to change the nature of treatment was subject to JR because it was regulated by statute(
religious Mental
functions, Healthfunctions.
not public Act ) and thus had a duty
to provide adequate treatment to mental patients.
have sufficient interest
in the outcome of the
decision
- JR is the method by which 1. Amenability to JR – only applies to public bodies -
R v Panel of Take – overs and Mergers ex parte Datafin -
2. Time limit – within three months the public function test was established. Court held that
courts review the legality of JR could be extended to bodies that exercise a public
an executive decision and 3. Applicant must establish that they have standing (locus
Time limit
function and perform public duties, even if they are not a
standi)
hold the executive ‘core’ public body. Courts will consider the source of
4. Procedural exclusivity – public law matters should only - Civil Procedure
power being Rules (CPR ) Part 54.5 (1) (b) – a claim for JR
exercised.
accountable for its decisions.
be challenged by JR must be brought promptly
- The principles established and in within
Datafin3 months.
were considered in
It enables courts to ensure 5. Exhaustion of alternative remedies before starting a Requirement
the case forofpromptness
R v Jockey Clubdoes ex violate
parte Aga artKhan
. 6 ECHR (Lam v
in which
that public bodies do not claim for JR Aga Khan’s horse was disqualified from racing after failing
UK)
exceed their powers and are 6. Ouster clauses - CPR , part a drug test(a)
3.1(2) and–AgatheKhan
courtsought JR for the
can extend thecommittees
time limit. CA
not acting ulta vires (beyond decision. The relationship between the
– if there is an exceptional reason ( R v Dairy Produce club and its Quota
MUST MEET ALL PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS members was a private law matter because it derived
their powers) Tribunal ex parte Caswell)
from voluntary agreement – Aga Khan did have private
law remedies. The court held that the jockey club was
Standing not subject to JR because ‘neither in its framework nor its
Judicial review – principles and preliminaries
Can a private body be amenable to JR? rules nor its functions does It fulfil a governmental role’’.-
- S 31 (3) SCA 1981
not a public body. Does not affect wider public.
states that ‘’ the court
- R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Market illustrates that private bodies are amenable - Rto JR if they
v Chief perform
Rabbi a public function.
, ex p Wachmann Beerthat
illustrates wasreligious
shall not grant refused to participate in the Farmers Market Programme organised by the Hampshire Farmers
bodies can notMarket and this
be subject decision
to JR. was held
The court amenable to
that the
permission unless it JR under s6 of the HRA even though it is a private company. This is because the company which regulated the market exercised
Rabbis decision to exile Wachmann from Judaism on the a public
considers that the function because it was set up by the county council (public authority) and continued to carry
ground out responsibilities
of adultery could not bethat the county
subject council
to JR because
applicant has sufficient had previously done. religious organisations are not regulated by the
interest in the matter to - R V Servite Houses and Wandsworth ex parte Goldsmith – held that private care providers
government. are Thus,
not subject to JR because
the decision does not their relationship
neither have a
which the application is commercial and they are not under a statutory obligation to provide accommodation so therefore
governmental not exercising
interest/ a public
public interest function
because in theis
interest
relates’’ provision of accommodation for the elderly.. Contrast to R (A) V Partnerships in Care where itmotivated
religiously was held inthat
thisthe private
case as thecompany providers
body carries out
- CPR 54 – claimant must decision to change the nature of treatment was subject to JR because it was regulated by statute(
religious Mental
functions, Healthfunctions.
not public Act ) and thus had a duty
to provide adequate treatment to mental patients.
have sufficient interest
in the outcome of the
decision
