1.

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

2. Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation (1947) Administrative decision ultra vires if

indedensibly unreasonable

3. AG v Jonathon Cape (1975) Breach of ministerial collective responsibility can amount to an actionable breach

of confidence

4. Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) (`Spycatcher case') restriction of press freedom cannot be justified on

security grounds if no actual risk exists

5. Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) A lawful assembly is not made unlawful because it provokes others to unlawful

behaviour

6. Blackburn v AG (1971) Entry to the EEC would not fetter parliamentary supremacy
7. Bromley v GLC (1983) A local authority must balance its committment to a particular policy with its fudiciary

duty to the public

8. 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

9. Bulmer v Bollinger (1977) EC legislation must be read as a whole, purposively; guidelines for referral to ECJ

10. Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works (1943) Ministerial decisions are not automatically void if taken,

in practice, by civil servants

11. Congreve v Home Office (1975) Ministerial discretion can be challenged in court if exercised arbitrarily

or improperly

12. Costa v ENEL (1964) EEC Regulations take priority over national legislation

13. 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

14. Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (1993) Freedom of expression could be safeguarded by the

common law, without direct enforceability of Convention rights

15. Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) Judge disaqualified if even the slightest hint of

financial interst in the outcome

16. 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

17. DPP v Jones (1999) Assembly on the highway not necessarily `trespassory' for the purposes of the

Public Order Act.

18. Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health (1934) No entrenchment of legislative provisions

19. Entick v Carrington (1765) No arbitrary ministerial powers

20. 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

21. Frankovich v Italy (1995) EC member states must compensate their citizens for losses arising out of

incorrect implementation of Directives

22. Garland v BREL (1982) Statutes should be read in line with EU treaties

23. Glynn v Keele University (1979) University disciplinary procedures subject to judicial review

24. Goode v Martin (2001) Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be read compatibly with Art.

25. Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1977) Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be

read compatibly with Art. 6

26. IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (1982) Any party with a genuine

interest has standing for judicial review

1. 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

2. Liversidge v Anderson (1942) Under Defence (General) Regulations (1939), ministerial discretion is absolute.

`Has reasonable grounds' means `Believes he has resonable grounds'.

3. 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

4. MacArthys v Smith (1980) EC Treaty obligations take precedence over national law, by virtue of the ECA

5. MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953) No one has standing to contest the Monarch's choice of title;

Parliamentary supremacy is not a Scottish concept

6. Malone v MPC (1979) Telephone tapping not illegal, as no specific legal restriction

7. Malone v UK (1984) Telephone tapping contravenes Art. 8

8. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority (1986) EC Directives do not have direct

horizontal effect in UK law

9. Mohammed-Holgate v Duke (1984) Power of arrest not lost because arrest is for unrelated reasons, unless
 irrational

10. McWhirter v AG (1972) Bill of Rights did not remove Crown prerogative

11. Moss v McLachlan (1985) Apprehension of a breach of the peace can founded on information, not just

on the immediate events

12. O'Reilly v Mackman (1983) Public law rights must be tested by judicial review

13. Pickin v BR Board (1974) Court has no jurisdiction to consider parliamentary procedures

14. 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

15. Porter v Magill (2000) Administrative decision made for improper motive can be ultra vires, even if

lawful

16. 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

17. 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

18. Ridge v Baldwin (1963) Person subject to disciplinary procedure has a right to make representations;

intensity of review depends on extents of rights affected

19. Rheinmülen-Düsseldorf v EVSt (1974) National law cannot deprive inferior courts right of access to ECJ

20. R v A (complainant's sexual history) (2001) Interpretative provision of HRA can allow statute to be read

compatibly with Art. 6

21. R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison ex p St Germain (1979) Prison disciplinary procedures must abide by

rules of natural justice

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. R v Environment Agency ex parte Marchiori (2002) Courts do not have jurisdiction to determine

whether legislation is incompatible with international law

26. R v Foreign Secretary ex p Rees-Mogg (1994) Making of treaties not reviewable by courts

27. R v Foreign Secretary ex p World Development Movement (1995) Any party with a genuine interest has

standing for judicial review

28. 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

29. R v Home Secretary ex p Bentley (1994) Royal prerogative of mercy is subject to judicial review
30. R v Home Secretary ex p Brind (1991) Convention rights (Art. 10) overcome by clear statutory

provisions

31. 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

32. R v Home Secretary ex p Fire Brigades Union (1995) Prerogative cannot be used by ministers to

circumvent legislation

33. 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

34. R v Howell (1981) Breach of the peace amounts to an expectation of harm to person or property

35. 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)

36. R v Khan (1996) Evidence not excluded because surveillance in breach of Art. 8; adequate protection

offered by PACE s.78

37. R v Lord Chancellor ex p Witham (1997) Imposing court fees may infringe person's right of access to

court

38. 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.

39. R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan (2000) Legitimate expectation may arise in

respect of substantive matters, not just procedure

40. R v Offen (2001) Broad interpretation of `exceptional circumstances', rather than declaration of

incompatibility, brings mandatory life sentence provisions into line with the HRA.

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. R(Daly) v Home Secretary (2001) Breach of Convention obligations (proportionality) gives grounds for

judicial review

48. R v Home Secretary ex p Khan (1985) A ministerial circular creates a legitimate expectation that its

procedure will be followed

49. Saunders v UK(1996) Statutory compulsion to answer questions that can be used as evidence

incompatible with Art. 6

50. Thoburn v Sunderland CC (2002) There are `constitutional' statutes; ECA not impliedly repealed

51. Whaley v Lord Watson of Invergowrie (2000) Acts of the Scottish Parliament are delegated legislation,

and reviewable by the courts

52. Wandsworth LBC v Winder (1985) Public law claim can found a defence to a private law action