Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:48:47.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hunting the Chimera–the end of O'Reilly v Mackman?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

John Alder
John Alder*
Affiliation:
Keele University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rule in O’Reilly u Mackman is well known. As a result of Lord Diplock’s speech in that case, the scope of the application for judicial review procedure under s 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and RSC Ord 53, has been dominated by attempts to distinguish between public and private law. According to Lord Diplock, public law cases must normally be pursued under the special Ord 53 procedure whereas private law cases even though involving substantive principles of judicial review must be pursued in ordinary courts. There are also hybrid cases - chimeras which combine features both of public and private law. In such cases the challenger is apparently free to proceed either under Ord 53 or by way or ordinary action or defence. These hybrids are not easy to reconcile with the purposes and policies behind the O’Reilly rule.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , July 1993 , pp. 183 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1993

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. [1983] 1 AC 147.

2. [1992] 1 All ER 705. See Cane [1992] PL 192; Fredman v Morris [1992] 108 LQR 335.

3. Eg Law v National Greyhound Racing Club [1983] 1 WLR 1302; McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 142; Breen v AEU [1971] 1 All ER 1148; Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574.

4. See Woolf [1986] PL 220, [1992] PL 221. Doyle v Northumbria Probation Committee [1991] 4 All ER 294 at 297.

5. RSC Ord 53, r 8.

6. [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at 1133. See RSC Ord 53, r 3, 5, 6. Supreme Court Act 1981, s 32(5).

7. R v Civil Service Appeals Board, exp Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310 at 315. (1987) 103 LQR 34 at 42-45. See also Cane [1992] PL 192.

8. (1987) 103 LQR 34 at 42-45. See also Cane [1992] PL 192.

9. No 126 (1993) paras 2.7, 3.3.

10. See R v Pawl on Take-overs and Mergers exp Datafin plc [1987] All ER 564 at 582; Weinberger v Inglis [1919] AC 606 at 636; Dawkins v Antrobus (1881) 17 Ch D 615 at 630; Bonsor v Musicians Union [1954] Ch 479; Abbot v Sullivan [1952] 1 All ER 226; Gaiman v National Association for Mental Health [1971] Ch 317 at 337; Nagle v Fielden [1966] 2 QB 633; Breen v AEU [1971] 1 All ER 1148 at 1153-4, 1158; Young v Ladies Imperial Club [1920] 2 KB 523 at 535; McInnes v Onslow Fane [1978] 1 WLR 142; Wood v Woad (1874) LR 9 EX 190; Capel v Child (1832) 2 Cr and J 588; Bonaker v Evans (1850) 16 QB 163; Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society [1958] 2 All ER 579 at 598.

11. See below, n 69.

12. Below, n 67. See also R v Jockey Club exp Ram Racecourses [1993] 2 All ER 225 at 247–8.

13. See Gray Elements of Land Law pp 588–593; Club exp the Aga Khan.

14. (1992) Times, 11 June. I am indebted to Gordon Goldberg of the University of Buckingham for first drawing my attention to this case. See also Wolf [1992] PL 625.

15. Eg R v Fernhill Manor School, exp Brown (1992) Independent, 25 June; Peabody Housing Association v Greene (1978) 38 P & CR 644; R v Jockey Club exp Ram Racecourses [1993] 2 All ER at 224–5.

16. [1971] 1 All ER 1148 at 11534. See also Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] QB 18.

17. Breen v AEU; McInnes v Onslow-Fane (above, n 3). See also Pergamon Press [1970] 3 All ER 535 at 542.

18. Eg Enderby Town Football Club v FA [1971] 1 All ER 215 at 219.

19. See Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574; Faramus v Film Artistes Association [1964] AC 925. Re Pergamon Press (above n 17); Lloyd v McMahon [1987] 1 All ER 1118 at 1161.

20. [1987] 1 All ER 564. See also R v Jockey Club (above n 15) at 247–8.

21. Cmnd 6407 (1976). The report did not directly tackle the question of what bodies should be subject to the new procedure.

22. [1992] 1 All ER 705 at 730.

23. See Woolf [1992] PL 221, 231.

24. O'Reilly v Mackman (above, n 1); Cocks v Thanet DC [1983] 2 AC 286; R v East Berkshire Health Authority, exp Walsh [1985] QB 152 at 166. See Pannick [1992] PL 1 at 6; Woolf [1992] PL 22 I. There is serious pressure on judicial resources on the Crown Side. Law Commission, op cit, n 9, para 214.

25. R v City Takeover Panel, loc cit, above, n 20 at 577,582, but see R v Lord Chancellor's Dept, exp Nangle [1992] 1 All ER 897 at 908.

26. R v Felixstow JJ, exp Leigh [1987] 1 QB 582; R v Secretary of State for the Environment, exp Rose Theatre Trust Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 754. The standing text is not confined to private rights. See Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93 at 99, 105, 110.

27. Above, n 1.

28. Day v Spelthorne DC [1983] 3 All ER 278 at 285-6.

29. D v NSPCC [1971] 1 All ER 459; Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Co [1983] 1 AC 598; Swain v Low Society [1983] 1 AC 598.

30. See Re Norway's (State) Application (No 1) [1989] 1 All ER661 at 667-8; (No 2) [1989] 1 All ER 701 at 716-7, 726, 738-9, CA, [1989] 1 All ER 745 at 756-7, HL; Srgladits International Encyclopedia of Comparative LAW Vol 2, Ch 2, paras 25, 31, 57.

31. See Samuel (1988) 8 Legal Studies 277, (1983) 46 MLR 558; Beatson, loc cit, above, n 8; Harlow (1980) 43 MLR 241; Weir International Encyclopedia of Comparative Low Vol 2, Ch 2, Part 111, paras 115134; Mitchell [1965] PL 95; Arthurs [1979] Osgood Hall LJ 1.

32. See Henderson Foundations of English Administrative Law (1963) (Harvard UP).

33. Holdsworth, HEL, Vol 6, Ch 6, Vol iv, pp 202-215, 2834.

34. Harlow (1980) 43 MLR 241.

35. Flagg Bros v Brooks 436 US 149 (1978); See also Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward 17 US 518 (1818); Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority 365 US 715 (1961); Shelley v Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948). For a symposium on the lack of conceptual coherence in the public law/private law distinction see (1982) 130 v Pa L Rev 1278. The US law is driven by the aim of limiting state power whereas English law appears to have the opposite motivation.

36. See Harlow (1980) 43 MLR 241.

37. In Eekelaar & Bell (eds) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (3rd edn).

38. See Arrowsmith (1990) 10 Legal Studies 231, (1990) 106 LQR 277. See also Daintith in Jowell and Oliver (eds) The Changing Constitution ch 8; Lewis, ibid, ch 9.

39. [1980] 2 All ER 608 at 613.

40. Eg Malone v MPC [1979] Ch 344.

41. See Craig (1990) 106 LQR 105.

42. See Woolf [1986] PL 220 at 23.

43. R v Lord Chancellor's Dept, exp Nangle [1992] 1 All ER 897 at 908; McLaren v Home Office [1990] 1 CR 824 at 836.

44. Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158. See Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Gibbs (1866) LR 1 HL 93 at 123. The tort of malicious abuse of office is an exception.

45. Lonrho v Tebbit [1992] 4 All ER 280 at 287; Rowling v Takaro Properties [1988] AC 473 at 501.

46. See Maitland ‘The Crown as Corporation’ Collected Papers 111 244. Magdalen College Case 11 Co Rep 709.

47. See Nissan v A-G [1977] AC 179.

48. Cf Town Investments v Department of the Environment [1977] 1 All ER at 817–4318, 827–428, 831–833.

49. Smith v ILEA [1978] 1 All ER 411; R v Secretary of State for Transport, exp Factortame plc [1991] 1 AC 663; compare D v NSPCC [1977] 1 All ER 589; Kirklees EC v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 717 at 728–9.

50. O'Reilly v Mackman [1982] 2 WLR 604 at 616.

51. See Chandler v DPP [1964] AC 763 at 770,796,800; D v NSPCC [1977] I All ER 589 at 609.

59. Tamlin v Hannaford [1950] 1 KB 18; BEC v Johns [1965] Ch 32; Hoffman la Roche v Secretary of state for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 at 364. The Kirklees case–above, n 49-shows a welcome move the other way.

53. With mixed success. See Town Investments v Department of the Environment (above, n 48); R v Secretary of State for Transport (above, n 46); Pearce v Secretary of State for Defence [1988] 2 WLR 144. See Wade Administrative Law (6th edn) pp 52,808 and 819.

54. Town Investments (above, n 48); Bushell v Secretary of State [1980] 2 All ER 608 at 613.

55. Maharaj v AG of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) [1979] AC 385 at 399. Cf Lord Hailsham. See also CSSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.

56. CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service ibid, at 409.

57. (1991) 107 LQR 298 at 309.

58. A-G v Guardian Newspapers [1988] 2 All ER 545 at 640.

59. Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 1 WLR 760. See Cripps [1984] 4 OJLS 194. Cf Lion Laboratories v Evans [1985] QB 526 which should perhaps be treated as a public law matter.

60. See Sovmots Investments v Secretary of State for the Environment [1979] AC 144. Cf Crabbe v Arun DC [1976] Ch 179-private law rules applied; Cf Pioneer Aggregates v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] AC 132; Foster v British Gas [1991] I QB 405 at 427.

61. [1988] para 6.20 cited by Power (1992) 142 NLJ 749. See also Feldman (1990) 106 LQR 246.

62. Day v Spelthorne RDC [1984] AC 262 at 276; McClaren v Home Office [1990] 1 CR 824 at 835; Wandsworth BC v Winder [1985] AC 461 at 486; IRC v National Federation for the Self Employed [1982] AC 617 at 647; Doyle v Northumbria Probation Committee [1991] 4 All ER 289 at 300; Cato Minister of Agriculture [1989] 3 CMLR 13.

63. Ackner LJ in Winder, above (dissenting). Woolf [1986] PL 220, [1992] PL 221 at 231.

64. Woolf [1992] PL 22 1; Sunkin [1990] PL 490; Justice/All Souls, ‘Administrative Law-Some Necessary Reforms’ (1988); Gordon and Rodgers [1989] NLJ 1128, 1167.

65. See R v Lord Chancellor's Dept, ex p Nangle [1982] 1 All ER 897; Fredman and Morris (1991) 107 LQR 298 at 304.

66. R v Jockey Club, exp Ram Racecourses [1993] 2 All ER 225 at 2434, 24743 (non-contractual case). However, the actual decisions deferred to precedent. Cf R v Football Association, exp Football League [1993] 2 All ER 833 (contract case). See also R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, exp the Aga Khan (3 July 1991, unreported) (Woolf LJ); R v Jockey Club, exp Masingbird-Mundy [1993] 2 All ER 207 at 221-2 (non-contractual but ‘consensual submission to jurisdiction’).

67. R v East Berkshire Health Authority, exp Walsh [1985] QB 152; R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, exp Aga Khan (5 December 1992, unreported); Law, v National Greyhound Racing Club Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1302; R v Panelon Takeovers and Mergers, exp Datafic [1987] QB815 at 838; See also R v Labour Party, exp Hughes (20 June 1990, unreported); R v Corporation of Lloyds, exp Briggs (1992) Independent, 30 July. The source of the particular power must be directly contractual. A statutory power triggered off by contract falls on the public law side of the Line: R v Lord Chancellor's Dept, exp Nangle [1982] 1 All ER 897 at 908; and the ‘contracted out’ delivery of statutory services remain within the public law sphere. Conversely a statutory code incorporated into a contract becomes private (R v East Berkshire Health Authority (above)). See also R v Secretary of state for the Home Dept, exp Benwell [1985] QB 554 at 574; but cf R v Coal Board, exp NUM [1986] 1 CR 79 1; Swain v Laur Society [1983] AC 5 18.

68. McClaren v Horn Office [1990] 1CR 824 at 836,837. R v Lord Chancellor's Dept, exp Nangle [1992] 1 All ER 897 at 907,908; R v Civil Service Appeals Board, exp Bruce [1988] 3 All ER 686 at 694, 696; cf R v Hull University Visitor, exp Page [1991] 4 All ER 747 at 751. See Walsh [1989] PL 131.

69. There is a strand of argument that implied contract may be the basis of the courts power to review private bodies. This is probably not the case (see eg Abbot, Nagle, McInnes cases, n 10. Lloyd (1958) 21 MLR 661, (1963) 26 MLR 412. Cf Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109 at 113; Byrne v Kinematograph Renters Society [1958] 2AllER579. Davies v Carew-Pole [1956] 1 WLR 833.

70. See Arrowsmith (1990) 106 LQR 277.

71. See Wolf, n 14.

72. See Law v National Greyhound Racing Club (above, n 67).

73. Supreme Court Act 1981, s 32(2).

74. IRC v National Federation for the Self Employed [1982] AC 6 17 at 639-6474; Davy v Spelthorne BC [1984] AC 262 at 278; Law v National Greyhound Racing Club (above, n 67); R v BBC, exp Lavelle [1983] 1 WLR 23 at 30; R v Derbyshire CC, exp Noble [1990] 1 CR 808; CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 at 408.

75. Above, n 10.

76. Ibid, at 583-5. See also Nicholls LJ at 586.

77. Ibid, at 575, 577.

78. Cases cited above, n 66. R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, exp the Aga Khan (below, n 82).

79. R v Chief Rabbi, exp Wachman, [1992] 1 WLR 1036; R v Inman of Bury Park Jam Masjid Luton, ex p Sulaimam Ali [1992] COD 132. Cf Ex p Cohen (1987) Times 22 September (statutory power).

80. R v St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Diocesen Board [1948] 1 KB 195; McDonald v Burns 1940 SC 376.

81. Above, ns 66-68 and 69.

82. [1993] 2 All ER 853.

83. Above, n 2.

84. [1983] 2 AC 237 at 285.

85. Lunrho v Tebbit [1992] 4 All ER 280.

86. [1983] 2 AC 237 at 285.

87. Preston v IRC [1985] AC 835 at 852.

88. [1991] 4 All ER 973 at 987 (affirmed above, n 85).

89. [1985] AC 461 although it could be argued that the presumption of validity would make such a defence colleteral (see below text, above ns 106-109).

90. See Doyle v Northumbria Probation Committee [1991] 4 All ER 296.

91. R v Reading Crown Court, exp Hutchinson [1987] 3 WLR 1062; Avon CC v Buscott [1988] 2 WLR 788; cf Wandsworth BC v Winder [1985] AC 461.

92. Davy v Spelthorn RDC [1984] AC 262; Doyle v Northumbria Probation Committee [1991] 4 All ER 294 at 301; Lonrho plc v Tebbit [1991] 4 All ER 973 at 987; An Bord Bainne Co-Op Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] 2 CMLR 584 at 589.

93. Ibid.

94. [1982] 3All ER 1124 at 1129, 1130, 1131.

95. Characterised by Lord Diplock as exclusively a public law concept but recognised in private law judicial review cases (above, n 17). This well illustrates the undesirability of cutting across the law of judicial review by reference to the public/private law divide.

96. Although there are dicta in favour of a broad exception for private rights cases. See Day v Spelthorne BC [1984] AC 262 at 276; Wandsworth BC v Winder [1985] AC 461 at 480, 481, 510; Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 at 416 per Lord Scarman.

97. Gouriet v UPOW [1977] 3 All ER 70 at 85,99-100, 110-112. This might be marginally extended through the concept of special damage. See Lonrho v Shell Petroleum [1981] 2 All ER 456; R v Secretary of State for the Environment, exp Ward [1984] 1 WLR 834 at 844,849; cf Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] 1 Ch 106 at 260. See also the Siskina [1979] AC 210.

98. [1982] 1 All ER 106.

99. [1992] 1 All ER 705 at 707.

100. Ibid, at 728–9.

101. [1960] AC 260.

102. [1897] AC 615. See also Healey v Minister of Health [1955] 1 QB 221.

103. See Ackner LJ (dissenting) in Wandsworth BC v Winder [1984] 3 All ER 976; Woolf [1986] PL 220 at 233, 235.

104. (1987) Times, 17 April.

105. [1984] AC 262.

106. Hoffman-La-Roche v Secretary of State [1975] AC 295; R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, exp Datafin plc [1987] 1 All ER 564 at 578.

107. See R v Secretary of state for Transport, exp Sherry (1988) Independent, 12 January. (I am grateful to the anonymous referee for reminding me of this case). See also Birks [1982] PL 580 at 589.

108. Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147; Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40; cf London and Clydesdale Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182 at 189-90; Rubinstein Jurisdiction and Illegality (1965).

109. [1992] 4All ER 737 at 757; Compare Glidewell LJ in the court below [1992] 3 All ER 577 at 602. See Arrowsmith Civil liability and Public Authorities (1992) at 25-26. See also Woolf [1986] PL 220, 234–235.

110. See Tate and Lyle v GLC [1983] 2 AC 509; Chapman v Honig [1963] 2 QB 104, Chief Constable of Kent v V [1983] QB 34; cf Ashby v Ebdon [1985] Ch 393. See Samuels (1988) vol 8, Legal Studies, p 277.

111. Gouriet v UPOW [1977] 3 All ER 70 at 85, 99-100, 110–112.

112. NHS (General and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974 (SI 1974/160) para 12.1.

113. [1983] 2 AC 286. (Covering an application for accommodation under homelessness legislation).

114. [1992] 1 All ER 705 at 728.

115. [1982] 3All ER 1124at 1126–7.

116. [1992] 1 All ER 705 at 728.

117. [1989] 3 CMLR 513.

118. But see above n 107.

119. [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at 1126. Compare Roy [1992] 1 All ER 705 at 709 and 725.

120. [1992] 3 All ER 512. See also Sherriff above n 107.

121. [1992] 4 All ER 280 at 288.

122. See Law Commission Consultation Paper No 126, HMSO, 1993, paras 2.14-2.23. Woolf [1992] PL 221. Cf Report of the Review Body on Civil Justice (1988) Cmnd 394, paras 120, 124.

123. [1993] 2 All ER 225 at 26248.