| Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) | Jurisdiction of the court to determine whether the use of a delegated is intra vires cannot be ousted easily |
| Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation (1947) | Administrative decision ultra vires if indedensibly unreasonable |
| AG v Jonathon Cape (1975) | Breach of ministerial collective responsibility can amount to an actionable breach of confidence |
| Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) (`Spycatcher case') | restriction of press freedom cannot be justified on security grounds if no actual risk exists |
| Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) | A lawful assembly is not made unlawful because it provokes others to unlawful behaviour |
| Blackburn v AG (1971) | Entry to the EEC would not fetter parliamentary supremacy |
| Bromley v GLC (1983) | A local authority must balance its committment to a particular policy with its fudiciary duty to the public |
| Brown v Stott (2000) | Right to avoid self-incrimination must be balanced against public interest; limited self-incrimination not necessarily in breach of Art. 6 |
| Bulmer v Bollinger (1977) | EC legislation must be read as a whole, purposively; guidelines for referral to ECJ |
| Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works (1943) | Ministerial decisions are not automatically void if taken, in practice, by civil servants |
| Congreve v Home Office (1975) | Ministerial discretion can be challenged in court if exercised arbitrarily or improperly |
| Costa v ENEL (1964) | EEC Regulations take priority over national legislation |
| CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (1985) | Royal prerogative subject to judicial review; judicial review limited where national security is at issue; grounds defined as `illegality', `irrationality', and `procedural impropriety'; right to be heard |
| Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (1993) | Freedom of expression could be safeguarded by the common law, without direct enforceability of Convention rights |
| Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) | Judge disaqualified if even the slightest hint of financial interst in the outcome |
| Douglas v Hello! (2003) | Law of breach of confidence suffices to maintain privacy where professional obligations are concerned; there is no specific law of privacy in the UK, Art. 9 notwithstanding |
| DPP v Jones (1999) | Assembly on the highway not necessarily `trespassory' for the purposes of the Public Order Act. |
| Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health (1934) | No entrenchment of legislative provisions |
| Entick v Carrington (1765) | No arbitrary ministerial powers |
| Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) | A minister making a policy decision cannot be expected to be as impartial as a judge |
| Frankovich v Italy (1995) | EC member states must compensate their citizens for losses arising out of incorrect implementation of Directives |
| Garland v BREL (1982) | Statutes
should be read in line with EU treaties |
| Glynn v Keele University (1979) | University disciplinary procedures subject to judicial review |
| Goode v Martin (2001) | Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be read compatibly with Art. 6 |
| Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1977) | Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be read compatibly with Art. 6 |
| IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (1982) | Any party with a genuine interest has standing for judicial review |
| Laker v Board of Trade (1976) | A discretion given to a minister to offer `guidance' is not a discretion to make policy; estoppel cannot be used to hold the Crown to policy |
| Liversidge v Anderson (1942) | Under Defence (General) Regulations (1939), ministerial discretion is absolute. `Has reasonable grounds' means `Believes he has resonable grounds'. |
| Locabail v Bayfield (2000) | Judge not biased because of professional or political affiliation, nor by race or gender. Judge potentiall biased if personally acquainted with any individual in a case |
| MacArthys v Smith (1980) | EC Treaty obligations take precedence over national law, by virtue of the ECA |
| MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953) | No one has standing to contest the Monarch's choice of title; Parliamentary supremacy is not a Scottish concept |
| Malone v MPC (1979) | Telephone tapping not illegal, as no specific legal restriction |
| Malone v UK (1984) | Telephone tapping contravenes Art. 8 |
| Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority (1986) | EC Directives do not have direct horizontal effect in UK law |
| Mohammed-Holgate v Duke (1984) | Power of arrest not lost because arrest is for unrelated reasons, unless irrational |
| McWhirter v AG (1972) | Bill of
Rights did not remove Crown prerogative |
| Moss v McLachlan (1985) | Apprehension of a breach of the peace can founded on information, not just on the immediate events |
| O'Reilly v Mackman (1983) | Public law rights must be tested by judicial review |
| Pickin v BR Board (1974) | Court has no jurisdiction to consider parliamentary procedures |
| Poplar Housing v Donaghue (2001) | HRA does not give courts a power to legislate; whether statute is legitimate and proportional is a question for parliament; declaration of incompatibility is the appropriate remedy |
| Porter v Magill (2000) | Administrative decision made for improper motive can be ultra vires, even if lawful |
| Rantzen v Mirror Group (1993) | Unlimited discretion of a jury to award damages is not a suitable way to determine the appropriate restrictions on freedom of speech |
| Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster FPC (1992) | Private law action can be instituted for a case that contains both private and public law elements |
| Ridge v Baldwin (1963) | Person subject to disciplinary procedure has a right to make representations; intensity of
review depends on extents of rights affected |
| Rheinmülen-Düsseldorf v EVSt (1974) |
National law cannot deprive inferior courts right of access to ECJ
|
| R v A (complainant's sexual history) (2001) | Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be read compatibly with Art. 6 |
| R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison ex p St Germain (1979) | Prison disciplinary procedures must abide by rules of natural justice |
| R v CC Devon ex p CEGB (1981) | Preventing a person going about his lawful business may support anticipation of a breach of the peace |
| R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lain (1967) | In determining whether a body is subject to judicial review, its functions are more important than the source of its authority |
| R v Employment Secretary ex p Seymour-Smith (1999) | EC Directive has a measure of direct horizontal effect, by being used as an aid to construction |
| R v Environment Agency ex parte Marchiori (2002) | Courts do not have jurisdiction to determine whether legislation is incompatible with international law |
| R v Foreign Secretary ex p Rees-Mogg (1994) | Making of treaties not reviewable by courts |
| R v Foreign Secretary ex p World Development Movement (1995) | Any party with a genuine interest has standing for judicial review |
| R v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green (2000) | Statutory compulsion to answer questions is not self-incrimination if court has a discretion to exclude evidence |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Bentley (1994) | Royal prerogative of mercy is subject to judicial review |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Brind (1991) | Convention rights (Art. 10) overcome by clear statutory provisions |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Fayed (1998) | When considering nationality applications, Home Secretary must give sufficient reasons for decision for representations to be made |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Prerogative cannot be used by ministers to circumvent legislation |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Doody (1993) | Prisoners on mandatory life sentence entitled to make representations about the recommended sentence period; hearing need not be in person |
| R v Howell (1981) | Breach of the peace amounts to an expectation of harm to person or property |
| R v Jockey Club ex p Aga Khan (1993) | Judicial review does not lie against a body whose powers are exercised by consent (cynically: judicial review does not lie against the governing bodies of sports) |
| R v Khan (1996) | Evidence not excluded because surveillance in breach of Art. 8; adequate protection offered by PACE s.78 |
| R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham (1997) | Imposing court fees may infringe person's right of access to court |
| R v MOD ex p Walker (2000) | A war crime is still an act of war, not a crime, for the purposes of compensation paid to servicemen. |
| R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan (2000) | Legitimate expectation may arise in respect of substantive matters, not just procedure |
| R v Offen (2001) | Broad interpretation of `exceptional circumstances', rather than declaration of incompatibility, brings mandatory life sentence provisions into line with the HRA. |
| R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Datafin (1987) | Judicial review may lie against a body that is not an emmanation of the state, if it exercises regulatory functions other than by consent |
| R v Secretary of State for Environment ex p Brent LBC (1981) | Holders of ministerial discretion have a duty to hear representations from those affected by their policies |
| R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust (1990) | If individuals do not have standing to apply for judicial review, then groups of individuals have no better standing |
| R v Smethwick Justices ex p Hand (1980) | Justice must be seen to be done; a judgement cannot stand where there will be a perception of bias |
| R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy (1923) | Justice must be seen to be done; a judgement cannot stand where there will be a perception of bias |
| R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport, and the Regions (2001) | Availability of judicial review may be sufficient to protect Art. 6 rights |
| R(Daly) v Home Secretary (2001) | Breach of Convention obligations (proportionality) gives grounds for judicial review |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Khan (1985) |
A ministerial circular creates a legitimate expectation that its
procedure will be followed |
| Saunders v UK(1996) | Statutory compulsion to answer questions that can be used as evidence incompatible with Art. 6 |
| Thoburn v Sunderland CC (2002) | There are `constitutional' statutes; ECA not impliedly repealed |
| Whaley v Lord Watson of Invergowrie (2000) | Acts of the Scottish Parliament are delegated legislation, and reviewable by the courts |
| Wandsworth LBC v Winder (1985) | Public law claim can found a defence to a private law action |
