Identify and analyse administrative law issues arising in complex fact situations;

Common Administrative Law Issues in Complex Situations

Jurisdiction and Ultra Vires: Did the public authority act within its legal power?

Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice): Was the decision-making process fair (right to be heard, unbiased decision-maker)?

Reasonableness and Proportionality: Was the decision reasonable and balanced?

Legitimate Expectation: Was a procedural or substantive promise made that should be honored?

Error of Law: Did the decision-maker misinterpret or misapply the law?

Abuse of Power: Was power exercised for improper purposes?

Judicial Reviewability: Is the decision one that courts can review?

Facts:
The council banned deer hunting on moral grounds, despite statutory powers allowing it.

Issue:
Did the council act ultra vires by considering irrelevant moral factors when exercising statutory powers?

Held:
Court held the council acted outside its powers by making a decision based on irrelevant considerations.

Analysis:
This case highlights jurisdictional error and improper exercise of discretionary power.

Facts:
Chief constable dismissed without being heard.

Issue:
Violation of procedural fairness (natural justice).

Held:
Dismissal unlawful due to lack of hearing.

Analysis:
In complex scenarios, fairness of process is critical; failing to provide a chance to respond invalidates decisions.

Facts:
Government promised to introduce a compensation scheme but abandoned it later.

Issue:
Whether legitimate expectation arose from the government’s promise.

Held:
The government breached legitimate expectation, but could abandon the scheme on public policy grounds.

Analysis:
Shows tension between fairness to individuals and public interest in complex administrative decisions.

Facts:
Local authority imposed restrictions on cinema hours.

Issue:
Was the decision so unreasonable it should be quashed?

Held:
No intervention unless decision is irrational or perverse.

Analysis:
Courts defer to administrative discretion unless decisions are Wednesbury unreasonable.

Facts:
Policy allowed searching prisoners' cells and reading confidential correspondence.

Issue:
Was the policy proportionate and respecting rights?

Held:
Policy unlawful as it breached proportionality.

Analysis:
Introduces proportionality in rights-based administrative challenges, balancing authority and individual rights.

Step 1: Identify the decision-maker and the power exercised. Check if jurisdiction is proper.

Step 2: Examine decision-making process. Was there fairness, opportunity to be heard, or bias?

Step 3: Consider reasonableness. Is the decision rational, or does it fail the Wednesbury test or proportionality?

**Step 4: Look for legitimate expectation or promises made.

**Step 5: Check for errors of law or abuse of power.

Your Message

Load more comments