Public -> JR Answer Structure No 2

Ultra Vires (illegal)

Public bodies may only validly exercise their powers within the limits conferred onto them by statute or common law. Decisions outside their scope may be held to be ultra vires (AG v Fulham Corp).

Error in law: an authority which is entrusted with a discretion must direct itself properly on the law, otherwise its decisions could be held to be invalid (R v Home Sec exp Venables – increasing the ‘tariff period’ Home Sec misdirected himself in law as his decision was based on irrelevant material (a public poll) and he disregarded relevant material.

A minister may commit an error in law if he acts without cause (based on evidence) or acts in a way that he reasonably would not do (Education Sec v Tameside Council).

Exercise of a power for an improper purpose with i.e. intending malice or personal dishonesty, can be held to be invalid (MC of Sydney v Cambell) – the council had a power to buy additional land to extend streets NOT to make profit.

Powers are not lawfully exercised if the decision maker takes into account irrelevant materialR v Home Sec exp Venables). and disregards relevant accounts (

Unauthorised delegation; a body to which the exercise of discretion has been entrusted by statute may not delegate the exercise of that discretion to another person or body (Barnard).

Discretion must not be fettered: public bodies often exercise discretion in deciding to grant a benefit or impose a penalty. In law the bodies must consider each case on its merits including exceptional circumstances and taking into account relevant standards, policy and precedent. But must be careful not to adopt a policy that would unreasonably refuse an application (British Oxygen Co v Board of Trade).

Irrationality/Unreasonableness.

A decision maybe set aside for unreasonableness. Using Lord Greene MR ‘Wednesbury test’ for unreasonableness, which states: “The authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to”.

Or the decision is lawful but imposes conditions that are unreasonable (R v Hillington). With the introduction of the European Convention of Human Rights, restrictions on a decision must be necessary and proportionate to be justifiable. The greater the interference with HR the greater the justification required to demonstrate the decision was reasonable.