Judicial review can only be brought about against public bodies or bodies performing public function. There are four grounds on which judicial review may be sought. This includes illegality1, irrationality2, procedural impropriety3 and ‘breach of human rights’4 granted under Human Rights Act 1988. One key aspect where illegality has been considered by the courts is the exercise of discretionary powers by a decision maker. Lord Greene in the important case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) summed up the questions the court will consider as follows: “The exercise of...a discretion must be a real exercise of the discretion. If, in the statute conferring the discretion, there is to be found expressly or by implication matters which the authority exercising the discretion ought to have regard to, then in exercising the discretion it must have regard to those matters.”
In Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968), Lord Reid held: “Parliament must have conferred the discretion with the intention that it should be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act, the policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole and construction is always a matter of law for the court.”
Illegality, as a ground for judicial review, requires the decision maker to have failed correctly to understand the law and/or to apply it: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). When exercising discretion, a decision maker must take into account all matters which they are required to consider as stated in the statute: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948).
The ground of irrationality is sometimes also referred to as ‘Wednesbury’ unreasonableness. This was made by Lord Greene in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948): “It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that...
...incorporate the test into domestic administrative law.
The modern procedural definition of the proportionality test is relatively clear. Tom Hickman, identified the most common formulation as a three-part procedure. The reviewing court must consider: Whether the measure was suitable to achieve the desired objective, it is necessary for achieving the desired objective. Whether, even so, the measure imposed excessive burdens on the individual it affected. In the UK, the doctrine has often been defined in contrast to the recognized ‘irrationality’ principle and the test coined in Wednesbury. Lord Steyn argued that although ‘there is an overlap’ between irrationality and proportionality and ‘most cases would be decided in the same way’, the ‘intensity of review’ is ‘greater’.
Since the courts first began applying the doctrine academic and judicial suggestions that proportionality should be in some way incorporated into domestic UK law have been regular. Moreover, pressure for reform has increased since the assent of the HRA (1998), which has required use of the doctrine in cases that involve the breach of ECHR rights. The most common suggestion, and the subject of this study, has been to establish proportionality as a separate full ground of judicial review. There are a number of clear advantages to the proposal. Firstly, it has been suggested that it would be preferable for the same test to be used to deal with claims arising...
...assault. In LLCs, the profits and losses are “passed through” the business to each member of the LLC. Secondly, Greg could go after Strip Mall 4 for damages resulting from the assault from Mike. Greg could also personally sue Mike for the tort he committed.
2) Shawn, Bryan, and Mike’s liability to: each other, Suppliers, Razorback, Tiger, Greg, and Strip Mall 4.
The LLC members, Shawn, Bryan, and Mike, are put in a very tight spot with this lawsuit. The LLC members have a fiduciary duty which basically means that all members must have a duty of loyalty and due care to the LLC. However, Mike went out of his way to break this duty by threatening to assault a customer. This allowed the LLC to get sued causing a joint liability to form as part of the business formation. If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation. Therefore, the results of Mike’s actions cause problems for all of the members. However, Mike committed an intentional tort through the assault, which brings the limelight on him. Assault is an action that causes the victim to fear an imminent battery. This is exactly what Mike spurred when he raised his voice and threated to punch Greg. In most cases, the members of a LLC divide losses according to a formula. But since Mike made the assault, the others members have the opportunity to hold him accountable for the losses. They go about this by handing over the individual amounts they are...
...Proportionality exists as a ground for setting aside administrative decisions in most continental legal systems and is recognised in UK cases where issues of European Community law and ECHR is involved, it seems logical that the treatment becomes the standard of substantive review in all cases.
A significant criticism of the Wednesbury criteria is that they do not allow for the effect on the life of the individual involved to be judged. Just because a judgement is not so unreasonable as to be incomprehensible does not mean that it is not disproportionately devastating for the affected individual – for example, when resources are scarce, it may not be irrational for a local authority to discharge their statutory duties under the 1996 Housing Act by offering housing in an area where it is cheap, but the effects on the lives of e.g. a person who has become homeless who is only offered accommodation a long way from good employment prospects, may be enormous. In such cases, the proportionality test would reveal that a general policy intended to conserve resources would in fact cause the individuals affected to consume more resources.
The state and thus administrative decisions enter into so many areas of the lives of individuals that the idea of bifurcation – using proportionality where “fundamental rights” are concerned and the Wednesbury test in all others – is disingenuous at best. In areas such as asylum support or housing, it is immensely complex to...
For the following, it is assumed the preliminary considerations of date and jurisdiction (including extra-territorial) with respect to the Corporate Corruption Act 2013 (NSW) ('the Act') and the $10,000 payment from Country Bank to Remember the Bush coalition are met.
As a for-profit organisation formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities)i Country Bank meets the requirement of being a 'corporation' for the purposes of the Act, as provision of banking services indeed constitutes an undertaking of business.
'Expenditure' connotes a benefit to be received, a cost arising from a payment with which no direct benefit which can be foreseen may indeed be more accurately labelled a donation. The objective of Country Bank in making said payment was clearly rural community betterment. This was evidenced by the public announcement on their website and a strict textual approach would incorporate philanthropy, particularly with the reasonable forethought of a tax deduction establishing a motive. There is little doubt then, that the payment in question satisfies the meaning of 'expenditure' as in section 4 of the Act.
In determining whether the payment in question was indeed directed to a 'political matter', the objective intention of parliament must be ascertained as legislatively mandated by s 33 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) and preferred jus commune in Mills v...
...Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation  1 KB 223 was an
unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, insofar as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation. The depth of judicial review and the deference due to administrative discretion vary with the subject matter. It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd.’ ( (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  UKHL 26, , Lord Cooke of Thorndon).
Explain and discuss, illustrating your answer by reference to relevant case law.
There are three grounds of judicial review in English law which were recognized by Lord Diplock in GCHQ case. One of them, the unreasonableness, was established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp and from that time on the English courts had full hands with a big amount of cases which were trying to pull the standard of unreasonableness down. This essay will talk about this ground of judicial review, its development and its current position in English law.
The first sentence of Lord Cooke criticizes the test developed in common law which put the standard so high that an...
ISAS 630: Project Part I
Title: The effects of Health Information technology on the quality of care outcomes.
Objective: The purpose of the project is to examine whether health information technology has impacted the quality of care outcomes of patients.
Method: Assessed the scholarly output of health information technology and quality of care published knowledge relevant to the effects of the patient safety and quality of care outcomes due to health information technologies. Analysis of the identified scholarly and peer reviewed articles, their journals and citation from Medline, CIHNAL and other databases was performed to determine the effects of health information technology on the outcome of quality of care.
Findings: Nine articles met the criteria for review. Most articles addressed the one or more quality of care outcomes in various health populations using health information technology in various form and shape. The authors identified gaps between existing literatures and suggested that future studies should focus on specific impact of health information technology and the quality of care outcomes.
Conclusion: This project seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the health information technologies and its impact on the quality of care outcome suggested in all the articles analyzed. One or more articles suggested that the most advanced health...
...Project PartB: Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Intervals
a. The average (mean) annual income was less than $50,000
Null Hypothesis: The average annual income was greater than or equal to $50,000
H₀: µ > 50000
Alternate Hypothesis: The average annual income was less than $50,000.
Ha: µ > 50000
Analysis Plan: Significance Level, α=0.05.
Since the sample size, n > 30 I will use z-test for mean to test the given hypothesis.
As the alternative hypothesis is Ha: µ > 50000, the given test is a one-tailed z-test.
Critical Value and Decision Rule:
The critical value for significance level, α=0.05 for a lower-tailed z-test is given as-1.645.
Decision Rule: Reject H₀, if z – statistic, -1.645
Test Statistic - minitab
One-Sample Z: Income ($1000)
Test of mu = 50 vs < 50
The assumed standard deviation = 14.55
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound Z P
Income ($1000) 50 43.48 14.55 2.06 46.86 -3.17 0.001
Interpretation of Results and Conclusion:
Since the P-value (0.0001) is smaller than the significance level (0.05), we reject the null hypothesis. The p-value implies the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis.
The significance level of 0.05, there is enough evidence to support the claim that the average annual income was less than $50,000.
Confidence Interval - minitab
The assumed standard deviation = 14.55
N Mean SE Mean 95% CI
50 43.48 2.06 (39.45, 47.51)
The 95% upper confidence limit is 47.51....
...BUSINESS LAW - BBAL201
Term 3 2013
Business Law Assignment
This report is going to analyse the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and torts in Australia. The Wrong Act 1958(Vic) is one of the most important proposed law in Victoria, It has been amendment in 2002 and 2003. The aim of the wrong Act was to legislate for wrongs against a person, Torts is an important part in The Wrong Act. This assignment will presentation in three parts.
In the first Part, what is torts will first be discuss, Then, The Wrong Act and the intention of Wrong act will be mention. At the end of first part, this report will give a summary of the purpose and intent of torts in The Wrong Act 1958.
Due to the conflicting provisions in each Act, problems has create from the differences, anomalies and inconsistencies. In the second part, this assignment is going to Identify and discuss the differences, anomalies and inconsistencies between the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) and other personal injury Acts within Victoria in respect to damages and the problems that arrive therein, especially the difference with personal injury damages.
In the third part, as there are differing provisions within the legislation, this report will follow the...