lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Tute 1 Admin - Full essay on tutorial 1
Administrative Law (University of Oxford)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Tute 1 – Admin – Error of law, Error of fact, Ouster Clauses
I. Conceptual basis
What is jurisdiction?
a. powers defined by statute
- e.g. R(A) v Croydon: a child = person under the age of 18
- e.g. South Yorkshire case: ‘substantial part of the UK’
both were contained within the statute
Distinct from questions of substance.
b. power gives the body the capacity to make the decision
Craig’s formalization: if X1, X2, X3 … then body may/shall X
X1, X2, X3 related to the preconditions that trigger exclusive jurisdiction for a particular
action. Y factors are statements as to what the executive can actually do.
The aspects of jurisdiction
Law: meaning of X term – e.g. child (Croydon case)
Fact: whether the definition is satisfied – e.g. age of the claimant, size of the merger in
South Yorkshire, for instance, the court decides whether it is substantial (based on the size),
but administrative bodies determine the size (before the court examines whether it is
substantial)
Institutional competence = contrast between courts’ expertise as interpreter of the law and
the fact: which body should make the decision?
Importance
- Inquires into whether the actions of the PB were legal – whether the body had
the power to act in the way it did by virtue of the type of body it is
- Jurisdiction relates to whether the court can review the decision at all.
essential = not taking over a decision meant for another
essential = enforcing the will of Parliament/upholding rule of law
II. The Law
Prior to Anisminic
a. collateral fact doctrine (until 1960s) – distinguished between errors made within
and outside jurisdiction
- predicated on the assumption that certain X factors could be said to be
jurisdictional and other non-jurisdictional
- so decisions of one kind recognised as reviewable were considered
jurisdictional; those outside the ambit were N-J.
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
- so if the type or scope of the case was within the scope of the tribunal, the
subsequent decision could not be reviewed.
- however, all elements present in the equation can be said to condition
jurisdiction dividing line between review and appeal disappears – illustrated,
as argued by Adams, by the facts of Pearlman (albeit decided after Anisminic)
- PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS HAD TO BE ANSWERED BEFORE A DECISION COULD BE
MADE; SOME OF THEM WERE JURISDICTIONAL, SOME WEREN’T.
- Lord Diplock in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation
Commission: misconstruction of a statutory description of
the kind of case which a PA can decide is jurisdictional,
misconstruction of a statutory description of the situation
they should determine is not
- why did they employ this?
o to enable space for expertise on the matter of authority
- what did this mean?
o no divide between J and NJ no principled way of drawing the
distinction because the ‘type’ of case can only be determined by instance
in question
o no reason to treat X conditions as not going to the jurisdiction of the
relevant body
o Wade and Forsyth made these points: the concept of jurisdictional error has
been stretched to breaking point, and ‘it requires only a simple verbal
manipulation to represent any error of law as the result of the tribunal asking
itself a wrong question or imposing some wrong requirement… any error of law
could be shown to involve an excess of jurisdiction.’
b. limited review (endorsed by Gordon)
- PB jurisdiction limited; limit determined not by truth or falsehood of findings, but
by scope or nature enough that the charge was laid in the correct form and
jurisdiction determined at the beginning of the inquiry = as long as tribunal asks
itself the right question, conclusion does not matter
o scope = assertion of the existence of the thing; court was not look at the
meanings assigned to the elements within the scope
o but scope is determined by elements (factual, legal) makes little sense
to regard an error relating to these words jurisdictional but themselves
non-jurisdictional
c. extensive review (similar to current law) – endorsed by Gould
- argued that legal terms inside the brackets – conditions – are jurisdictional
- all issues of law are to be decided by the courts (jurisdictional) because of:
o parliamentary intent
o impossible to talk of ‘error of law’ unless elements have a given meaning
because language implies a departure from criterion laid down by the
court.
o uniformity only by giving the legal meaning of a term to the courts can
uniformity of definitions be established
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
Tute 1 Admin - Full essay on tutorial 1
Administrative Law (University of Oxford)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
Tute 1 – Admin – Error of law, Error of fact, Ouster Clauses
I. Conceptual basis
What is jurisdiction?
a. powers defined by statute
- e.g. R(A) v Croydon: a child = person under the age of 18
- e.g. South Yorkshire case: ‘substantial part of the UK’
both were contained within the statute
Distinct from questions of substance.
b. power gives the body the capacity to make the decision
Craig’s formalization: if X1, X2, X3 … then body may/shall X
X1, X2, X3 related to the preconditions that trigger exclusive jurisdiction for a particular
action. Y factors are statements as to what the executive can actually do.
The aspects of jurisdiction
Law: meaning of X term – e.g. child (Croydon case)
Fact: whether the definition is satisfied – e.g. age of the claimant, size of the merger in
South Yorkshire, for instance, the court decides whether it is substantial (based on the size),
but administrative bodies determine the size (before the court examines whether it is
substantial)
Institutional competence = contrast between courts’ expertise as interpreter of the law and
the fact: which body should make the decision?
Importance
- Inquires into whether the actions of the PB were legal – whether the body had
the power to act in the way it did by virtue of the type of body it is
- Jurisdiction relates to whether the court can review the decision at all.
essential = not taking over a decision meant for another
essential = enforcing the will of Parliament/upholding rule of law
II. The Law
Prior to Anisminic
a. collateral fact doctrine (until 1960s) – distinguished between errors made within
and outside jurisdiction
- predicated on the assumption that certain X factors could be said to be
jurisdictional and other non-jurisdictional
- so decisions of one kind recognised as reviewable were considered
jurisdictional; those outside the ambit were N-J.
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
, lOMoARcPSD|59658805
- so if the type or scope of the case was within the scope of the tribunal, the
subsequent decision could not be reviewed.
- however, all elements present in the equation can be said to condition
jurisdiction dividing line between review and appeal disappears – illustrated,
as argued by Adams, by the facts of Pearlman (albeit decided after Anisminic)
- PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS HAD TO BE ANSWERED BEFORE A DECISION COULD BE
MADE; SOME OF THEM WERE JURISDICTIONAL, SOME WEREN’T.
- Lord Diplock in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation
Commission: misconstruction of a statutory description of
the kind of case which a PA can decide is jurisdictional,
misconstruction of a statutory description of the situation
they should determine is not
- why did they employ this?
o to enable space for expertise on the matter of authority
- what did this mean?
o no divide between J and NJ no principled way of drawing the
distinction because the ‘type’ of case can only be determined by instance
in question
o no reason to treat X conditions as not going to the jurisdiction of the
relevant body
o Wade and Forsyth made these points: the concept of jurisdictional error has
been stretched to breaking point, and ‘it requires only a simple verbal
manipulation to represent any error of law as the result of the tribunal asking
itself a wrong question or imposing some wrong requirement… any error of law
could be shown to involve an excess of jurisdiction.’
b. limited review (endorsed by Gordon)
- PB jurisdiction limited; limit determined not by truth or falsehood of findings, but
by scope or nature enough that the charge was laid in the correct form and
jurisdiction determined at the beginning of the inquiry = as long as tribunal asks
itself the right question, conclusion does not matter
o scope = assertion of the existence of the thing; court was not look at the
meanings assigned to the elements within the scope
o but scope is determined by elements (factual, legal) makes little sense
to regard an error relating to these words jurisdictional but themselves
non-jurisdictional
c. extensive review (similar to current law) – endorsed by Gould
- argued that legal terms inside the brackets – conditions – are jurisdictional
- all issues of law are to be decided by the courts (jurisdictional) because of:
o parliamentary intent
o impossible to talk of ‘error of law’ unless elements have a given meaning
because language implies a departure from criterion laid down by the
court.
o uniformity only by giving the legal meaning of a term to the courts can
uniformity of definitions be established
Downloaded by olinder seth ()
