R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386

Facts:

  • A British cortisum sought aid and trade provision for a project to construct a hydroelectric power station on the Pergau river.
  • Despite advice from the Overseas Development Administration that the project was an abuse of the overseas aid programme in that it was uneconomic and was not a sound development project, the SoS decided to approve support for the project and the UK and Malaysian Governments signed a financial agreement.
  • The applicants, a non-partisan pressure group, sought an assurance from the SoS that no further funds for the project would be furnished, but he refused to give such an assurance
  • The applicants sought judicial review of the SoS’s decision to grant funding and to refuse to withhold outstanding payments.


 Ratio:

  • Application allowed.
  • Since standing went to jurisdiction it was not to be treated as a preliminary issue but was to be taken in the legal and factual context of the whole case.
  • The merits of the challenge were an important factor when considering standing and significant factors in support of the conclusion that the applicants had sufficient interest for the purposes of the application were the importance of vindicating the rule of law, the importance the rule of law, the importance of the issue raised, the likely absence of any other responsible challenger, the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance and assistance regarding aid.
  • It was for the court to determine on the evidence whether particular conduct was within the purpose of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 but, once it was so determined, the weight to be given to competing factors was a matter for the SoS.
  • The power under the ACt to furnish assistance related to economically sound development and, although the SoS was entitled when making decisions whether to grant assistance under the Act to take into account political and economic considerations, on the evidence, no developmental promotion purpose within s.1 existed at the time the financial agreement was signed and the SoS’s decision was therefore unlawful.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more

R. (on the application of Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, (2002)

Facts: The first claimant was a British national who had been captured by the United States forces in Afghanistan and detained in Guantanamo Bay as an 'enemy combatant' He was deprived of access to court proceedings and legal advice, and applied for judicial review in the UK seeking to compel the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs either to intervene with the US government or alternatively to explain the omission to do so Issue: Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the decision by the Secretary of State not to intervene Whether the UK government had any duty to protect the claimant as one of its citizens Held: The Court could review the decisions on grounds of rationality and legitimate expectation The Court held that there was no legal duty on the state to protect its citizens in such circumstances
Read more

Summarise and discuss Lord Bingham’s eight ‘sub-rules’ of the Rule of Law.

Lord Bingham based his view about the rule of law on three key assumptions: Everyone should be equally bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law. Laws must be publicly and prospectively published. Laws should be publicly administered in the courts. The law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and predictable. Bingham’s rule of law suggests that it cannot exist without democracy. The rule of law is a kind of implicit contract between the state and the individual.
Read more