The Sustainable Local Development Act 2017 delegates authority to the Minister for Local Sustainable Development to ‘fund projects that protect vulnerable ecosystems whilst supporting local economic growth’. The Minister agrees to fund an initiative that would see large hotels built next to sensitive sand dunes in Suffolk where an endangered species of bird also happens to nest. The Friends of Suffolk Dunes are outraged when the news emerges, as they believe that the hotels will be catastrophic for the local ecosystem. It also comes out that the Minister’s nephew is a primary shareholder in the company that will be building the hotels. Meanwhile, George, a local resident, had his proposal to set up eco-tours and bird-watching in the area rejected, and is upset because no reasons were given for the rejection. Advise Friends of Suffolk Dunes and George with reference to any grounds for judicial review they may claim and any procedural requirements that must be met to pursue a claim. [Note: This is a hypothetical question and neither the Sustainable Development Act 2017 nor the Minister for Local Sustainable Development exist.]

  • Friends of Suffolk Dunes: illegality under improper use as the funding has not been exercised in the way it should have. The Minister must justify this placement of the hotels and his connection to the nephew.
  • George: could potentially make a claim for legitimate expectation or illegality under lack of evidence, but would most likely not hold up as he is only a local resident. Being upset does not bring any action by itself.

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