Free UK Public Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free UK Public Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in UK Public Law. Whether you're studying for exams or simply want to learn more, these notes will help you understand concepts such as constitutional principles, separation of powers, judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty, human rights, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. Sources of the Constitution

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• The Rule of Recognition - Identifies the fundamental rule used to determine the validity of laws in a legal system.

Key statutory framework references

• Scotland Act 1998 s. 28(8) - Reflects the Sewel Convention on legislative consent.

Landmark cases

• Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645 - Confirmed that a constitutional convention cannot displace or override statute.

Supporting cases

• Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] 1 QB 752 (QB) - Demonstrated the courts’ reluctance to give direct legal force to conventions concerning collective ministerial responsibility.
• Re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada [1981] 1 SCR 753 - Clarified conventions’ role in formal constitutional amendment procedures, illustrating comparative approaches.

2. Constitutional Rights and Principles

Landmark cases

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 (HL) - Affirmed that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by ambiguous statutory wording.
• R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 - Limited the scope of executive prerogative to prorogue Parliament if done for improper purposes.
• Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) - Established the category of “constitutional statutes” that are not subject to implied repeal.

Supporting cases

• Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69 - Explored the extent of common law and ECHR obligations to investigate historic events.
• Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32 - Treated the Northern Ireland Act as a constitution-like statute, requiring a generous and purposive interpretation.
• R (Buckinghamshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3 - Illustrated a flexible approach to constitutional principles in large-scale infrastructure decisions.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 - Emphasized Parliament’s constitutional role by requiring legislation before triggering Article 50 TEU.

3. Separation of Powers

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Parliamentary Privilege - Examines the legal immunities and privileges enjoyed by Parliament and its members, enabling them to perform their functions without interference from the executive or judiciary.
• Limits of Executive Power - Explores the constitutional boundaries on the powers of the executive, ensuring that it acts within the rule of law and respects the separation of powers.
• Royal Prerogative - Refers to the residual powers of the Crown, exercised by the government, and the judicial oversight of their use in modern constitutional practice.

Landmark cases

• Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 (KB) - Established that government officers cannot act without lawful authority.
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) - Confirmed that the exercise of certain prerogative powers is subject to judicial review.

Supporting cases

• Re Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 64 - Affirmed the King cannot personally render judgments in judicial matters.
• M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 - Demonstrated that the executive, including its ministers, is not above the law.
• Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765 (HL) - Reinforced Parliament’s internal autonomy (Enrolled Bill rule) but is often referenced in discussions of privilege.
• Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 (HL) - Held that statutory provisions take precedence over conflicting prerogative powers.

Modern applications and recent developments

• Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL) - Although central to statutory interpretation, it also exemplifies the balance between Parliamentary proceedings and judicial scrutiny.

4. Rule of Law

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• A.V. Dicey and the Rule of Law - Classic conception emphasizing legality, equality before the law, and judicial protection of rights.

Supporting cases

• R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2006] 2 AC 307 (HL) - Addressed clarity and limits in stop-and-search powers.
• R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345 - Demonstrated the need for accessible and foreseeable laws on assisted suicide.
• R (WL (Congo)) v Home Secretary [2012] 1 AC 245 - Emphasized transparency in detention and deportation decisions.
• R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] AC 453 - Considered retrospectivity in welfare regulations.
• R (Reilly (no. 2)) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 413 - Followed up on statutory clarity and fairness.
• R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2009] 1 AC 756 (HL) - Addressed prosecutorial independence in high-profile corruption investigations.
• McGonnell v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR 289 - Demonstrated the importance of impartial tribunals for the rule of law.
• R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46 [2003] 1 AC 837 (HL) - Underscored judicial independence by limiting the role of the executive in setting criminal tariffs.

Modern applications and recent developments

• The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act - Strengthened judicial independence and clarified the separation between the judiciary and Parliament.

5. Parliamentary Sovereignty

Landmark cases

• R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262 (HL) - Explored the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and questioned whether it might be subject to fundamental constitutional principles.
• R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 - Affirmed that the executive cannot alter domestic law via the royal prerogative, reinforcing the supremacy of Parliament in triggering Brexit.

Supporting cases

• Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590 - Early authority on implied repeal.
• Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765 (HL) - Reiterated courts’ unwillingness to look behind the parliamentary process (Enrolled Bill rule).
• R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85 (HL) - Paved the way for increased EU law recognition in limiting domestic legislation.
• R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603 - Emphasized the supremacy of EU law in areas within EU competence.
• R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] 1 AC 1 - Showed Parliament allowing EU law constraints under the European Communities Act.
• AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, [2012] 1 AC 868 - Raised questions about whether certain fundamental principles might limit Parliament’s legislative power.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 - Held that prorogation thwarting Parliament’s constitutional functions is unlawful, underscoring the balance between sovereignty and justiciability.

6. Human Rights

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Human Rights Act 1998 and Convention Rights - Examines how the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, enabling individuals to enforce their rights domestically.
• Common Law Fundamental Rights - Explores the protection of fundamental rights through common law principles, independent of statutory or Convention-based frameworks.

Key statutory framework references

• Human Rights Act 1998 s.2 - Duty to take Strasbourg case law into account - Requires UK courts to consider judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights when determining cases involving Convention rights.
• Human Rights Act 1998 s.3 - Interpretative obligation - Imposes a duty on courts to interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so.
• Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 - Declarations of incompatibility - Allows courts to issue a declaration that a piece of legislation is incompatible with Convention rights, though it does not invalidate the legislation.

Landmark cases

• R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 [2004] 2 AC 323 - Stated that domestic courts should generally mirror Strasbourg jurisprudence.
• R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14; [2010] 2 AC 373 - Showed the Supreme Court may diverge from Strasbourg where it finds sufficient justification.
• R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532 (HL) - Exemplified common law fundamental rights aligning with ECHR proportionality analysis.

Supporting cases

• R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15 - Illustrated permissible restrictions on political advertising in light of Article 10 ECHR.
• Re G (Unmarried Couple) [2008] UKHL 38 - Applied HRA obligations in adoption cases.
• Home Secretary v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28; [2010] 2 AC 269 - Required sufficient disclosure in control order proceedings under Article 6 ECHR.
• Al-Khawaja v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23 (ECtHR) - Addressed hearsay evidence under Article 6.
• Ambrose v Harris [2011] UKSC 43, [2011] 1 WLR 2435 - Considered the point at which ECHR Article 6 right to a fair trial is engaged.
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] 2 AC 72 (SC) - Extended positive operational obligations under Article 2 ECHR to voluntary psychiatric patients.
• R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 [2014] 3 WLR 200 - Addressed assisted dying, tensions with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, and parliamentary discretion.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45 - Demonstrated modern proportionality reasoning under the HRA.
• Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 41 - Ongoing debate around penal policy, Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR, and parliamentary compliance.

7. Jurisdiction

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Error of Law - Examines situations where a decision-maker misinterprets or misapplies the law, rendering their decision subject to judicial review.
• Control of Fact Finding - Explores the extent to which courts can review the factual findings of decision-makers, particularly in cases where factual errors affect the legality of a decision.
• Ouster of Judicial Review - Refers to statutory provisions that attempt to exclude or limit judicial review, and the courts' approach to interpreting and enforcing such clauses.

Landmark cases

• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL) - Redefined jurisdictional error, severely limiting “ouster clauses.”
• R v Home Secretary, Ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74 - Established the “precedent fact” doctrine, requiring the court to decide fundamental jurisdictional facts.

Supporting cases

• Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 - Early recognition of expanded judicial involvement in error-of-law issues.
• R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 (HL) - Confirmed some non-statutory bodies are subject to review for legal errors.
• R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 23 - Addressed reasonableness in defining “substantial part” of the UK.
• R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663 - Allowed limited judicial review of the Upper Tribunal.
• Jones v First Tier Tribunal [2013] UKSC 19 - Differentiated appeals on fact from issues of law.
• Pendragon Plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] UKSC 37 - Confirmed the approach to statutory construction in tax avoidance.
• Hoffmann-La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 (HL) - Demonstrated the scope of prerogative powers in regulating commerce.
• R v Hillingdon LBC, ex parte Puhlhofer [1986] AC 484 (HL) - Narrow approach to factual error review.
• R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330 (HL) - Recognized that serious factual errors may lead to unlawful decisions.
• E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49 [2004] QB 1044 - Set out four conditions for review based on material error of fact.
• R (Oceana) v Upper Tribunal [2023] EWHC 791 (Admin) - Recent confirmation of the Cart principles.
• R (LA (Albania)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1337 - Addressed fact-finding powers in appeals.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 - Highlighted how courts interpret ouster clauses narrowly, preserving review.

8. Illegality Review

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Failure to Exercise Discretion - Examines situations where a decision-maker fails to properly exercise their discretionary powers, either by not making a decision or by acting under dictation.
• Delegation and the Carltona Principle - Explores the rules governing the delegation of decision-making powers, including the Carltona principle, which allows officials to act on behalf of ministers.
• Fettering of Discretion - Refers to the improper restriction of discretionary powers, such as through rigid policies or rules that prevent individual consideration of cases.
• Abuse of Discretion - Covers situations where discretionary powers are exercised for improper purposes, in bad faith, or based on irrelevant considerations.

Supporting cases

• R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60; [2009] 1 AC 756 - Example of alleged failure to exercise discretion under pressure.
• Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560 - Established the Carltona principle allowing ministerial delegation within a department.
• Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18 - Clarified improper delegation of statutory powers.
• Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 - Illustrated limits on delegation in prosecutorial decisions.
• R v Port of London Authority, Ex parte Kynoch Ltd. [1919] 1 K.B. 176 - Warned against rigid policies that exclude discretion (fettering).
• British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 (HL) - Allowed policies if applied flexibly without foreclosing discretion.
• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Brent London Borough Council [1982] QB 593 - Confirmed decisions must not be made with an inflexible mind.
• R (Elias) v Defence Secretary [2006] EWCA Civ 1293; [2006] 1 WLR 3213 - Showed fettering can arise from misunderstanding a statutory power.
• Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 (HL) - Demonstrated that improper purpose may invalidate a decision.
• Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054 - Illustrated penalties imposed for extraneous aims can be unlawful.
• R v Lewisham LBC, ex parte Shell UK Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 938 (CA) - Found a council’s boycott motivated by improper purposes.
• R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386 - High-profile application of improper purpose in foreign aid.
• Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014 - Example of relevant/irrelevant considerations in coverage of educational policy.
• Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768 (HL) - Confirms that public bodies must act properly within statutory constraints.
• Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759 - Decision-makers must correctly weigh relevant considerations.
• R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 - Involved policy review in the context of consular assistance.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3 - Reaffirmed that courts respect discretionary space for planning authorities unless there is illegality or irrationality.
• R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 - Demonstrated deference to decision-makers who have properly considered relevant factors.

9. Irrationality Review

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 - Refers to the standard of review where a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, as established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].
• Heightened Scrutiny - Examines the stricter standard of judicial review applied in cases involving fundamental rights or particularly sensitive issues, requiring more rigorous justification from public authorities.
• Comparison with Proportionality - Contrasts the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard with the proportionality test, which assesses whether a decision is suitable, necessary, and balanced in achieving its objective.

Landmark cases

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA) - Origin of the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test.
• R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532 (HL) - Showed how proportionality may offer more rigorous scrutiny than Wednesbury in human rights contexts.
• R (ABCIFER) v Defence Secretary [2003] QB 1397 (EWCA Civ 473) - Discussed interplay between Wednesbury and proportionality in prisoner-of-war compensation.

Supporting cases

• British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 (HL) - Referenced in both fettering discretion and unreasonableness contexts.
• Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014 - Demonstrated Wednesbury’s flexible application to educational decision-making.
• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 521 (HL) - Example of local authority challenges under Wednesbury.
• R (Bradley) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] QB 114 - Addressed unreasonableness in the context of ombudsman findings.
• R (O) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2012] 1 WLR 1057 (CA) - Showed that a decision could be invalid if Wednesbury-unreasonable in social welfare.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996] QB 517 (CA) - Introduced “heightened scrutiny” where fundamental rights are at stake.
• Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 - Further blurred distinctions between Wednesbury and proportionality reviews.

10. Proportionality Review

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Comparison to Wednesbury - Examines how proportionality contrasts with the traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness standard in judicial review.
• Procedural Test - Focuses on the procedural aspects of proportionality, particularly in the context of human rights and administrative decisions.
• Proportionality in Common Law - Explores the development and application of the proportionality principle within the common law framework.

Landmark cases

• Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 - Expanded proportionality analysis into deprivation-of-citizenship cases, bridging common law and Convention rights.

Supporting cases

• Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493 - Demonstrated the Strasbourg perspective that mere Wednesbury scrutiny may be insufficient.
• R (Alconbury Ltd) v Environment Secretary [2001] UKHL 23; [2003] 2 AC 295 - Early sign that proportionality might become a general ground of review.
• R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 [2007] 1 AC 100 - Emphasized the procedural dimension of proportionality in rights contexts.
• Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 - Detailed the limbs of the proportionality test in immigration contexts.
• Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury [2013] UKSC 39 - Applied a structured proportionality test to asset-freezing measures.
• Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69 - Broached whether proportionality might fully replace Wednesbury in certain contexts.
• Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 3 - Applied proportionality to sanctions listing.

Modern applications and recent developments

• R (JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16 - Used proportionality in social security decisions.
• Michalak v General Medical Council [2017] UKSC 71 - Considered proportionality in discrimination claims within professional regulation.

11. Legitimate Expectations Review

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Procedural vs. Substantive Legitimate Expectations - Distinguishes between procedural protections (e.g., fair hearing) and substantive outcomes (e.g., fulfillment of promises) in legitimate expectation cases.
• Express Promise and Established Practice - Examines how legitimate expectations can arise from explicit promises by public authorities or consistent past practices.

Landmark cases

• R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 - Leading authority on substantive legitimate expectations; a clear promise that was legally enforceable.

Supporting cases

• R v Devon CC, ex p Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 - Early recognition of procedural protection for expectations.
• R (Bhatt) v Assessor [2007] EWCA Civ 1495 - Distinguished procedural and substantive forms.
• Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149 - Foundational case on the need for fairness.
• R v Liverpool Corporation, ex p. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association [1972] 2 QB 299 - Illustrative of procedural fairness in practice changes.
• Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629 (PC) - Mandated a hearing if a public authority promises one.
• R (Luton Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin) - Court recognized reliance on government funding promises.
• R v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte US Tobacco International Inc [1992] 1 QB 353 - Showed reliance on consistent governmental policy.
• R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 714 - Outlined policy shifts and legitimate expectation.
• R v Home Secretary, ex p. Hargreaves [1997] 1 All ER 397 - Clarified the threshold for substantive legitimate expectations.
• R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115 (CA) - Weighing fairness against the public body’s duty to consider other policy interests.
• Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 - Emphasized proportionality as the test for frustrating a legitimate expectation.
• R (Bibi) v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 237 (CA) - Addressed detrimental reliance and the potential remedy of reconsideration.
• Finucane v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2019] UKSC 7 - Examined the expectation of an independent inquiry.
• R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Home Secretary [2008] 1 AC 1003 - Government policy change tested against legitimate expectations in immigration.
• R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin) - Explored whether a referendum promise can create a legitimate expectation.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rashid [2005] EWCA Civ 744 - Addressed unfair treatment due to inconsistent policy application.
• R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 [2009] 1 AC 453 - Controversial revocation of a promise regarding island resettlement.
• Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 32 - Illustrated an override of substantive expectation only if proportionate.
• Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59 - Stressed a principle of consistency in administration.
• Rowland v Environment Agency [2005] Ch 1 [2003] EWCA Civ 1885 - Issues around ultra vires representations.
• Stretch v United Kingdom (2004) 38 EHRR 12 (ECtHR) - Misrepresentation prevention under human rights standards.

Procedural Fairness

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Fair Hearing - Explores the right to a fair hearing as a fundamental principle of natural justice, ensuring impartiality and procedural fairness in decision-making.
• Special Advocates - Examines the role of special advocates in closed material proceedings, balancing national security concerns with the right to a fair trial.
• Impact of the Human Rights Act - Analyzes how the Human Rights Act 1998 has influenced judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights in UK public law.

Landmark cases

• Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (HL) - Revived the “right to be heard” principle and extended fairness requirements beyond purely judicial settings.

Supporting cases

• Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 - Early case establishing the right to be heard.
• Re HK [1967] 2 QB 617 (CA) - Confirmed that an immigration officer must act fairly.
• McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520 - Differentiated types of decisions (application vs. forfeiture).
• R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 36 [2004] 1 AC 604 - Clarified the requirement of properly communicating decisions affecting rights.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28 - Required disclosure of gist of the case in control order proceedings.
• AT v Home Secretary [2012] EWCA Civ 42 - Examined fair procedure in national security contexts.
• Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61 - Emphasized procedural fairness in parole hearings.
• Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No 1) [2013] UKSC 38 - Confirmed a right to a fair hearing in asset-freezing measures.
• A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25 - Balanced open justice with anonymity.
• R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56 - Confirmed a duty of proper consultation.

Modern applications and recent developments

• Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413 - Inspired the special advocate regime to protect sensitive information.
• Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 - Limits on closed material procedures in civil trials.
• Tariq v Home Office [2012] 1 AC 452 (SC) - Upheld restricted disclosure in employment tribunal disputes involving national security.
• R (Alconbury Ltd) v Environment Secretary [2001] UKHL 23; [2003] 2 AC 295 - Demonstrated how Article 6 ECHR fair hearing requirements affect administrative processes.
• Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 - Leading authority on apparent bias and the fair-minded observer test.

13. Public Law Standing

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Growth of Representative Standing - Traces the expansion of standing rules to allow representative bodies and NGOs to bring claims in the public interest.
• Civil Society and Pressure Groups - Examines the role of civil society organizations and pressure groups in shaping public law through litigation and advocacy.
• Statutory Duty - Focuses on the enforcement of statutory duties by public authorities and the remedies available for breaches.

Landmark cases

• R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 (HL) - Seminal case on standing, affirming a broad “sufficient interest” test.

Supporting cases

• R v HM Treasury, Ex parte Smedley [1985] QB 657 - Early acceptance of standing to challenge public expenditure.
• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504 - Narrow reading of sufficient interest; later softened by subsequent judgments.
• R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 - Showed that sincere interest in constitutional affairs may suffice for standing.
• R v Social Services Secretary, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540 (CA) - Key illustration of standing for campaign groups.
• R v Pollution Inspectorate, ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329 - Granted standing to Greenpeace due to its expertise and local interest.
• R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386 - Adopted a flexible approach to standing where important public concerns are at stake.
• R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 346 (Admin) - Recent example of public interest standing in procurement challenges.
• R v Somerset CC, Ex parte Dixon [1998] Env LR 111 - Environmental interests recognized as legitimate grounds for standing.
• Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 - Confirmed a liberal approach to environmental standing under public law.
• R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] 1 AC 1 (HL) - Demonstrated organizational standing regarding discriminatory employment regulations.

14. Statutory Interpretation

List of related topics, cases, and principles

• Literal, Golden, and Mischief Rules - Explores traditional statutory interpretation methods: the literal rule (plain meaning), the golden rule (avoiding absurdity), and the mischief rule (addressing legislative intent).
• Purposive Approach - Examines the modern approach to statutory interpretation, focusing on the purpose and objectives behind legislation, particularly in light of EU and human rights law.
• Use of Parliamentary Materials - Analyzes the circumstances under which courts may refer to parliamentary debates (Hansard) and other legislative materials to interpret statutes.
• Why Legislation is Important - Highlights the constitutional role of Acts of Parliament as the highest form of law.

Key statutory framework references

• Section 6 HRA - Requires courts, as public authorities, to act compatibly with Convention rights.

Landmark cases

• Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL) - Permitted reference to Hansard to clarify ambiguous legislative provisions.

Supporting cases

• Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394 - Demonstrated literal interpretation leading to seemingly paradoxical results.
• Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7 - Applied the golden rule to avoid absurdity.
• Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279 (HL) - Illustrated purposive interpretation of legislation regulating abortion.
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA) - Referenced for reasonableness but often cited in statutory interpretation contexts.
• London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43 - Example of strict vs. purposive interpretation in anti-discrimination law.