Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:19:22.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ERROR OF LAW AND FLAWED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2014

David Feldman
David Feldman*
Affiliation:
Rouse Ball Professor of English Law, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Downing College, Cambridge.
Get access

Abstract

Section I shows that the idea, founded on the “principle of legality”, that all legal flaws make a decision void as a matter of law is erroneous. Infringing a legal requirement may not affect validity, or may make a decision only voidable. Section II shows the significance of distinctions between various stages of decision-making processes, and between different types of issues for judges, and argues that case law shows that seven guiding principles operate alongside the “principle of legality”. Section III concludes that these common-law principles reflect professional practice and provide a realistic basis for predictable, normatively legitimate administrative law.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 275 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1969] 2 A.C. 147, H.L.

2 Exceptionally, High Court judges' decisions are never void or ineffective. They are legally effective unless and until set aside on appeal. If no appeal is available, the decision is effective and unchallengeable (In re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] A.C. 374, H.L.). Statutory provisions excluding an appeal are interpreted as allowing an appeal when the judge has done something which he had no power to do, such as imposing an unauthorised sentence: R. v Cain [1985] A.C. 46, H.L., at 55-56 per Lord Scarman.

3 See e.g. R. v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1993] A.C. 682, H.L.; R. v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 W.L.R. 23, H.L.

4 See e.g. E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49, [2004] Q.B. 1044, C.A.

5 R. (AA (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 49, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2224, S.C., on the interpretation of s. 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

6 R. (Jones) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2013] UKSC 19, [2013] 2 A.C. 48, S.C., especially per Lord Carnwath at [41]–[46]. In Eclipse Film Partners v H.M.R.C. [2013] UKUT 639, [2014] B.T.C. 503, UT, at [41]–[46], Sales J. held that Jones did not justify an unusually critical approach by an appellate tribunal to questions which would normally be classified as issues of fact.

7 [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 A.C. 663, S.C., at [59]. For discussion, see Elliott, Mark and Thomas, Robert, “Tribunal justice, Cart, and proportionate dispute resolution” [2012] C.L.J. 297–324Google Scholar.

8 [1964] A.C. 40, H.L.

9 [1993] A.C. 682, H.L.

10 In Anisminic [1969] 2 A.C. 147, at 171B-C, Lord Reid warned against this, saying, “It has sometimes been said that it is only where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity. But in such cases the word ‘jurisdiction’ has been used in a very wide sense, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to use the term except in the narrow and original sense of the tribunal being entitled to enter on the inquiry in question.”

11 See e.g. Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32, [2002] N.I. 390, H.L.; Wang v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1286, 1296, P.C., per Lord Slynn of Hadley.

12 Bailey, S. H., “Grounds for judicial review: due process, natural justice, and fairness”, in Feldman, David (ed.), English Public Law 2nd ed. (Oxford 2009)Google Scholar, ch. 15, at 711, para. 15.96; Howard v Boddington (1877) L.R. 2 P.D. 203 at 210–11 per Lord Penzance; R. v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49, [2006] 1 A.C. 340, H.L. (delay did not invalidate confiscation order, although the European Court of Human Rights later held that it violated the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under ECHR Art. 6.1: Bullen and Soneji v United Kingdom (Application no. 3383/06), Judgment of 8 January 2009); Director of Public Prosecutions of the Virgin Islands v Penn [2008] UKPC 29 per Lord Mance at [18]. See also London & Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 W.L.R. 182, H.L., at 189–90 per Lord Hailsham L.C., and R. (Dulai) v Chelmsford Magistrates' Court [2012] EWHC 1055 (Admin), [2013] 1 W.L.R. 220, DC, at [54]–[59] per Stanley Burnton L.J., with whom Treacy J. agreed.

13 [1994] 1 A.C. 531, H.L. See also R. v Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All E.R. 310, C.A. (decision a nullity when no reasons given); R. (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 36, [2004] 1 A.C. 604, H.L. (unlawful to enforce consequences of decision against person before informing her of the decision); R. v Lancashire County Council, ex parte Huddleston [1986] 2 All E.R. 941, C.A. (authority ought to explain reasons for decision when challenged by judicial review, but applicant lost on merits).

14 [2003] UKHL 36, [2004] 1 A.C. 604.

15 Local Government Act 1972, s. 236(3), (4), (5). The “confirming authority”, if not specified in the enabling Act, is the Secretary of State in England: ibid., subs. (11).

16 Statutory Instruments Act 1946, s. 3(2), (3).

17 [1969] 2 A.C. 147.

18 Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford 1971), 94–98Google Scholar, 104.

19 Ibid., at p. 54.

20 Ibid., at pp. 105–106 (footnotes omitted).

21 Craig, Paul, Administrative Law, 7th ed. (London 2012)Google Scholar, ch. 24. The quotation is at p. 743. See also Bingham, Sir Thomas, “Should public law remedies be discretionary?” [1991] P.L. 64–75Google Scholar.

22 Those we have are often inappropriate. For example, the suggestion that relief will be withheld for a not insignificant error only where the same decision would inevitably have been reached without it (e.g. Simplex G.E. (Holdings) v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989) 57 P. & C. R. 306, C.A.) does not allow adequate weight to be given to countervailing considerations. Compare R. (Catt) v Brighton and Hove City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 298, [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 11, C.A., at [39]–[49] per Pill L.J.; R. (Gibson) v Harrow District Council [2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin) at [39] per Sales J., and see Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 31(6) in relation to the effect of delay on good administration.

23 Forsyth, Christopher, “‘The metaphysic of nullity’ – invalidity, conceptual reasoning and the rule of law”, in Forsyth, Christopher and Hare, Ivan (eds.), The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord: Essays on Public Law in Honour of Sir William Wade (Oxford 1998), 141–60Google Scholar; Forsyth, Christopher, “Collateral challenge and the rule of law” [1999] J.R. 165–69Google Scholar; id., “The legal effect of unlawful administrative acts: the theory of the second actor explained and developed” (2001) 35 Amicus Curiae 20–23.

24 Forsyth, C.F., Wade and Forsyth's Administrative Law, 11th ed. (Oxford 2014)Google Scholar, forthcoming. I am grateful to Professor Forsyth for generously sharing this passage with me before its publication.

25 Livingstone v Westminster Corporation [1904] 2 K.B. 109; Rootkin v Kent County Council [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1186, C.A., at 1195 per Lawton L.J.

26 I am grateful to Professor John Bell for pointing this out to me.

27 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147; R. v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] Q.B. 815, C.A.; R. (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (Public Law Project and another intervening) [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 A.C. 663.

28 R. (Shoesmith) v Ofsted [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459, C.A.

29 In re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] A.C. 374, per Lord Diplock, with whom Lord Keith agreed, at pp. 380-81, 391 respectively.

30 R. v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Guinness plc [1990] 1 Q.B. 146 at 177, [1989] 1 All E.R. 509 at 526, C.A., per Lord Donaldson M.R. See also R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Swati and Butt [1986] 1 W.L.R. 477, [1986] 1 All E.R. 717, C.A.; R. (Shoesmith) v Ofsted [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459, C.A.

31 R. (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (Public Law Project and another intervening) [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 A.C. 663.

32 Ibid., at [47]. This echoes Wade's point in Administrative Law, note 18 above, at p. 54.

33 [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 A.C. 663 at [59]. See also Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers P.S.C. at [123]–[135].

34 Ibid., at [123]–[125].

35 The term is sometimes misleadingly and confusingly used to mean that legal or constitutional rights must be respected. That is a narrower meaning than “legality”, being limited to one possible ground of unlawfulness, namely violating people's rights. The principle of legality in my sense goes beyond not doing anything that violates rights, and is also different from not doing anything that breaches principles of public law. It involves having good, lawful authority for action.

36 [2012] EWCA Civ 842, C.A.

37 EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 630, C.A.

38 See R. (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE and others intervening) [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, S.C., discussed below.

39 [2012] EWCA Civ 842 at [62] per Sullivan L.J.

40 Ibid. at para. [64].

41 R. v Wicks [1998] A.C. 92, H.L.

42 O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237, H.L.; Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 A.C. 286, H.L. On what counts as a public law challenge, see Craig, Administrative Law, note 21 above, pp. 836–45.

43 The same applies in relation to steps taken by a planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission: R. (Gibson) v Harrow District Council [2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin), at [33] per Sales J.

44 R. v Wicks [1998] A.C. 92, H.L., at 106–107 per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, 116–117 per Lord Hoffmann; Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 A.C. 143, H.L., disapproving Bugg v Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] Q.B. 473, D.C.

45 Wandsworth L.B.C. v Winder [1985] A.C. 461, H.L.

46 R. v Wicks [1998] A.C. 92, H.L., at 106–107.

47 See e.g. Blackburn v Attorney General [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1037, C.A.; McWhirter v Attorney General [1972] C.M.L.R. 882, C.A.; R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Lord Rees-Mogg [1994] Q.B. 552, D.C.; R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, D.C.; McWhirter and Gouriet v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2003] EWCA Civ 384; R. (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 936 (Admin), [2008] 2 C.M.L.R. 57, Admin. Ct., and [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), [2008] A.C.D. 70, D.C.

48 R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] A.C. 617, H.L.

49 R. v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Guinness plc [1990] 1 Q.B. 146 at 159–60 per Lord Donaldson M.R.

50 R. (Rusbridger) v Attorney General [2003] UKHL 38, [2004] 1 A.C. 357, H.L.; R. (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1076, S.C.

51 Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All E.R. 560, C.A.; R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Oladehinde [1991] 1 A.C. 254, H.L.

52 R. (Chief Constable of the West Midlands) v Birmingham Justices [2002] EWHC 1087 (Admin); D.P.P. v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin), [2008] 1 W.L.R. 379, D.C.; R (Raphael) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 462, [2012] P.T.S.R. 427, C.A.

53 See, e.g., Robertson v Ministry of Pensions [1949] 1 K.B. 227; Lewisham L.B.C. v Roberts [1949] 2 K.B. 608, C.A.; Howell v Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. [1951] A.C. 837, H.L.; Lever (Finance) Ltd v Westminster LBC [1971] 1 Q.B. 222, C.A.; Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council [1981] 2 All E.R. 204, C.A. This continues now that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has superseded public-law estoppel.

54 See e.g. Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32, [2002] N.I. 390, H.L.; Wang v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1286, 1296, P.C., per Lord Slynn of Hadley.

55 Bailey, “Grounds for judicial review”, note 12 above, at ch. 15, p. 711, para. 15.96; Howard v Boddington (1877) L.R. 2 P.D. 203 at pp. 210–211 per Lord Penzance; Director of Public Prosecutions of the Virgin Islands v Penn [2008] UKPC 29, per Lord Mance at [18]. See also London & Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 W.L.R. 182, H.L., at pp. 189–90 per Lord Hailsham L.C.

56 Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 W.L.R. 190.

57 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40, H.L.; R. (Shoesmith) v Ofsted [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459, C.A. The same applies to a legitimate expectation that one will have an opportunity to make representations: Attorney General for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 A.C. 629, P.C.

58 See e.g. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 W.L.R. 190.

59 Calvin v Carr [1980] A.C. 574, P.C.; Lloyd v McMahon [1987] A.C. 821, H.L.

60 See e.g. R. (Hill) v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2013] EWCA Civ 555, [2014] 1 W.L.R. 86, C.A. I am grateful to Imogen Galilee for drawing this case to my attention.

61 Glynn v Keele University [1971] 1 W.L.R. 487; Cinnamond v British Airports Authority [1980] 1 W.L.R. 582, C.A.; Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2008] EWCA Civ 1148, [2009] 2 W.L.R. 423, C.A., particularly Sedley L.J.'s dissent at [113]–[116]; [2009] UKHL 28, [2010] 2 A.C. 269, H.L.; R. (Shoesmith) v Ofsted [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459.

62 Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374, H.L.

63 Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd [1972] 1 W.L.R. 190.

64 [1972] 1 W.L.R. 190.

65 See also R. (Rahman) v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 944 (Admin), [2011] Eq. L.R. 705, Blake J. For examples of judges taking other evasive action, either by holding that a body has not acted unlawfully at all or by deciding to withhold a remedy where the body had substantially but not fully complied with its duty, see R. v Paddington Valuation Officer, ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd (No. 2) [1965] 1 Q.B. 380, C.A.; R. (Hurley and Moore) v Secretary of State for Innovation, Business and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), [2012] H.R.L.R. 374, D.C.

66 [1958] Q.B. 132, C.C.A.; [1959] A.C. 83, H.L.

67 “Moral defective” was one of four classes of persons suffering from “mental defectiveness”, defined in section 1(2) of the 1913 Act as “a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind existing before the age of eighteen years”.

68 R. v Head [1958] Q.B. 132, C.C.A.

69 [1959] A.C. 83 at 103 per Lord Tucker, with whom Lords Reid and Somervell agreed.

70 Ibid., at 113–114. Nevertheless, Lord Denning would not have reinstated the conviction, because the role of the House of Lords was to answer the contested question of law, and only in exceptional circumstances should it set aside a verdict of acquittal by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

71 Ibid., at 104 per Lord Somervell, with whom Lord Reid, Lord Tucker and, on this point, Viscount Simonds agreed.

72 Ibid., at 97 per Viscount Simonds, dissenting.

73 It is of no great moment whether she would have had to apply for certiorari as well; the likelihood is that she would not. See R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex part Khawaja [1984] A.C. 74, H.L.; R. (AA (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 49, [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2224, at paras. [52]–[53] per Lord Toulson J.S.C.; compare Lord Carnwath J.S.C. at paras. [57]–[59].

74 R. v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No. 2) [2001] 2 A.C. 19, H.L.; R. (M) v Hackney London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 4, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2873, C.A.

75 [2010] EWCA Civ 1435, [2011] Q.B. 856, C.A.; application dismissed [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1138, S.C.

76 R. (Stellato) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 608 (Admin), [2006] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 761, D.C.; [2006] EWCA Civ 1639, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 608, C.A.

77 R. (Stellato) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 5, [2007] 2 A.C. 70, H.L.

78 Article 5.5 of the ECHR requires that there be an enforceable right to compensation for deprivation of liberty which violates Art. 5, and Human Rights Act 1998, s. 9 makes provision for payment of damages where a court order gives rise to the unjustified deprivation of liberty.

79 Breach of a condition would disentitle a person to further liberty if and only if his right to liberty had arisen from the grant of bail. For a case of that sort, see e.g. R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Turkoglu [1988] Q.B. 398, C.A., where the applicant had been released on bail after being lawfully detained as an illegal immigrant.

80 [2011] EWCA Civ 351, [2011] 1 WLR 2862, C.A.

81 See e.g. Courts Act 2003, ss. 31 to 35.

82 [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, S.C.

83 Ibid., at [26], [34]–[35], [65] per Lord Dyson, with whom all the other justices save Lord Phillips agreed on these points.

84 Lord Hope of Craighead D.P.S.C., Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and Lord Dyson JJ.S.C.

85 [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, S.C., at [351]–[358]. Lord Kerr, at para. [249], also found the distinction between absence and misuse of power compelling; the latter should, he thought, give rise to private-law damages only if power was used for an unauthorised purpose.

86 Ibid., at paras. [66] (citing Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 A.C. 143, H.L., at 158D-E per Lord Irvine of Lairg L.C.) and [87].

87 [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, at para. [193] per Lord Walker, and see Lord Hope at paras. [170], [176].

88 Ibid., at paras. [68] per Lord Dyson and [207] per Baroness Hale.

89 Ibid., at paras. [60] per Lord Dyson and [198] per Baroness Hale.

90 Ibid., at para. [68] per Lord Dyson.

91 For example, that the flaw should involve a deliberate decision to continue an unlawful policy and cynical approach to the cases causing a serious breach of public law (ibid., at [220]–[221] per Lord Collins).

92 [2011] UKSC 23, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1299, S.C.

93 Ibid., at paras. [36], [41], [42].

94 Lumba [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, at para. [357] per Lord Brown, repeated in Kambadzi [2011] UKSC 23, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1299, S.C., at para. [120].

95 [2001] 2 A.C. 19, H.L.

96 [1997] Q.B. 924, C.A.

97 Bugg v D.P.P., Percy v D.P.P. [1993] Q.B 473, D.C.

98 Wills v Bowley [1983] 1 A.C. 57, H.L.

99 Percy v Hall [1997] Q.B. 924, 947. In Tchenguiz and others v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2013] EWHC 1578 (QB) at [32]–[34] Eder J. accepted that the Percy v Hall defence might arguably be extended to those executing search warrants. (I am grateful to Tom Hickman for pointing this out to me.)

100 [2011] EWCA Civ 4, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2873, C.A.

101 M v East London NHS Foundation Trust and London Borough of Hackney (interested party) [2009] M.H.L.R. 154, Burton J.

102 See Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales [1994] 2 All ER 597, C.A., and In re S-C [1996] Q.B. 599, 612, C.A., per Sir Thomas Bingham M.R.

103 R. (M) v Hackney London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 4, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2873, C.A., at [54] per Toulson L.J.

104 Ibid., at para. [56].

105 Ibid., at para. [58].

106 Ibid., at paras. [39], [56].

107 [2010] EWCA Civ 869, C.A.

108 [1958] Q.B. 132, C.C.A., [1959] A.C. 83, H.L., discussed at text to note 66 et seq. above.

109 [1999] 1 W.L.R. 662, C.A.

110 Hill v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1990] 1 W.L.R. 946, 952, [1990] 1 All E.R. 1046, 1051, per Purchas L.J.

111 Roberts v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 1 W.L.R. 662 at 669 per Clarke L.J., , explaining a dictum in Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 W.L.R. 692Google Scholar, 703, [1988] 2 All E.R. 521, 529, H.L., per Lord Griffiths.

112 R. (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE and others intervening) [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245, S.C.; R. (Kambadzi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 23, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1299, S.C.

113 One possible exception to this relates to trespass to land, on account of the doctrine of trespass ab initio. But that doctrine has been doubted in modern times, and has been restricted by statute. See Feldman, David, The Law Relating to Entry, Search and Seizure (London 1986), 385–87Google Scholar.

114 R. (Bhatti) v Croydon Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 522 (Admin), [2011] 1 W.L.R. 948, D.C.

115 [2003] UKHL 39, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 1763, H.L.

116 Lords Hutton, Millett and Rodger formed the majority; Lords Bingham and Steyn dissented. See to the same effect R. (James and others) v Secretary of State for Justice (Parole Board intervening) [2009] UKHL 22, [2010] 1 A.C. 553, [2009] 2 W.L.R. 1149, H.L.

117 See to the same effect R. (Sturnham) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 47, [2013] 2 A.C. 254, S.C.; R. (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1020, S.C., on the effect of improper delay in dealing with a prisoner's request for release on licence.

118 American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396, H.L.

119 [1975] A.C. 295, H.L. Lords Reid, Morris, Diplock and Cross formed the majority; Lord Wilberforce dissented.

120 [1997] Q.B. 924, C.A., discussed at text to note 96 et seq. above.

121 Ibid., at p. 951.

122 See now Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport intervening); R. v Budimir (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport intervening) [2010] EWHC 1604 (Admin), [2011] Q.B. 744, D.C.

123 Percy v Hall [1997] Q.B. 924, 952.

124 [2012] EWHC 3745 (Admin), [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2706, S.C.

125 Ibid., at paras. [66]–[68], [85]–[88] per Wilkie J.

126 HM Treasury v Ahmed (No. 2) [2010] UKSC 5, [2010] 2 A.C. 534, S.C.

127 [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), [2012] H.R.L.R. 374, D.C.

128 Higher Education (Higher Amount) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/3020); Higher Education (Basic Amount) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/3021).

129 Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s. 76(a), Race Relations Act 1976, s. 71, and Disability Discrimination Act 1995, s. 49(1). These provisions have now been superseded by Equality Act 2010, s. 149.

130 [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 374, at [91], [96], [99] per Elias L.J. See Hickman, Tom, “Too hot, too cold or just right? The development of public sector equality duties in administrative law” [2013] P.L. 325Google Scholar.

131 [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin), [2012] HRLR 374, at [99]–[100] per Elias L.J., [102] per King J.

132 See Forsyth, Christopher, “The rock and the sand” (2013) 18 J.R. 360Google Scholar.

133 See Varuhas, Jason N. E., “The reformation of English administrative law? ‘Rights’, rhetoric and reality” [2013] C.L.J. 369Google Scholar.