Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:18:26.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE NATURE OF POWER AS PUBLIC IN ENGLISH JUDICIAL REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2009

Colin D. Campbell
Colin D. Campbell
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Monash University.
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 90 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2009

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 For a sample of the judgments evincing acceptance of this proposition see R. v. North East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] Q.B. 213, 251 per Lord Woolf M.R. on behalf of the court; R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 931, 932 per Hoffmann L.J.; Quigly v. Chief Land Registrar [1993] 4 All E.R. 82, 85 per Hoffmann L.J., concurred with at 86 per Balcombe and Leggatt L.JJ.; R. (on the application of Marchiori) v. Environment Agency [2002] EWCA Civ 3 at paras. [39], [40] per Laws J., concurred with at para. [61] by Thorpe L.J.; R v. Inner London Crown Court, ex p I, unreported, 12 May 2000, at para. [21] per Laws J., concurred with at para. [28] per Silber J.; R. v. Somerset County Council, ex p Dixon (1998) Env.L.R. 111, 121 per Sedley J.; Scott v. National Trust [1998] 2 All E.R. 705, 712 per Robert Walker J.; R. v. Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings [1995] 1 All E.R. 513, 525 per Laws J.

2 [1987] Q.B. 815.

3 Ibid., at p. 847 per Lloyd J.

4 See R. v. London Borough of Camden, ex p Hughes [1994] C.O.D. 253, 254 per Latham J.; R. v. Bolsover District Council, ex p Pepper [2001] L.G.R. 43, 51 per Keene J.; R. (on the application of Ise Lodge Amenity Committee) v. Kettering Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1132 at para. [64] per Goldring J.; R. (on the application of Hopley) v. Liverpool Health Authority [2002] EWHC 1723 at para. [53] per Pitchford J. and R. (on the application of Nurse Prescribers Limited) v. The Secretary of State for Health [2004] EWHC 403 at para. [69] per Mitting J.

5 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (S.I. No. 3132), rule 30.5, as amended by Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2005 (S.I. 2005/3515), rule 8 and Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3132), rule 54.20, as amended by Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2003 (S.I. 2003/364, rule 5(e)).

6 See the emphasis placed on fairness and justice in the new Rules – Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (S.I. 1998/3132), respectively rule 1.1(1) and 1.1(2)(d) – as well as the judicial recognition of this emphasis: Clark v. University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1988, 1997.

7 See, for instance, R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 930 per Farquharson L.J. and 932 per Hoffman L.J. A recognition of this factor is also implicit in Donaldson M.R.'s comments in Datafin that “No one could have been in the least surprised if the panel had been instituted and operated under the direct authority of statute law … Its lack of a statutory base is a complete anomaly” (at 835). See also R. v. Chief Rabbi, ex p Wachmann [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1036, 1041–1042 per Simon Brown J.

8 The argument presented here develops analysis in C. Campbell, “The Public/Private Distinction in Australian Administrative Law”, in M. Groves and H.P. Lee, eds., Australian Administrative Law (Cambridge 2007), at pp. 36–37.

9 J.W.F. Allison, A Continental Distinction in the Common Law (revised edn, Oxford 2000), p. 72.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., at p. 37. But cf. C. Laborde, “The Concept of the State in British and French Political Thought” (2000) 48 Political Thought 540, esp. pp. 542, 550–554.

12 Sampford, C., “Law, Institutions and the Public/Private Divide” (1991) 20 Fed. L. Rev. 185, 198.Google Scholar

13 Allison, note 9 above, pp. 103–4.

14 Ibid., at p. 104.

15 Sampford, note 12 above, p. 198.

16 Taggart, M., “Corporatisation, Privatisation and Public Law” (1991) 2 P.L.R. 77, 79.Google Scholar

17 C. Harlow, “‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Law: Definition without Distinction” (1980) 43 M.L.R. 241, 257. See also, Allison, note 9 above, at pp. 82–90; Stone, C. D., “Corporate Vices and Corporate Virtues: Do Public/Private Distinctions Matter?” [1982] U. Pa. L.Rev. 1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Black, J., “Constitutionalising Self-Regulation” (1996) 59 M.L.R. 24, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 For a useful analysis of the difficulties in proving the counter-factual mental states of legislators, see R. Dworkin, Law's Empire (Oxford 1986), pp. 325–7.

20 R. v. Football Association Ltd ex p Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R. 833, 849.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 See also in this connection R. v. Advertising Standards Authority Ltd, ex p The Insurance Service plc (1990) 2 Admin. L.R. 77 at 86 per Glidewell L.J., concurred with at 93 per Tucker J.; Channel Swimmers Association v. Ruston (unreported, Q.B.D, Dec 1999) at [21] per Tucker J.

24 (1997) 9 Admin.L.R. 274.

25 Ibid., at p. 277 per Lord Woolf M.R., concurred with at p. 279 per Millett L.J. and Potter L.J.

26 Ibid., at pp. 277–279 per Lord Woolf M.R., concurred with at pp. 279 per Millett and Potter L.JJ.

27 (1993) Q.B. 17.

28 Ibid., at p. 45 per Glidewell L.J., concurred with at p. 53 per Stocker and McCowan L.JJ.

29 Ibid., at pp. 45–53, per Glidewell L.J., concurred with at p. 53 per Stocker and McCowan L.JJ.

30 See also R. v. Financial Intermediaries Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association, ex p Cochrane [1990] C.O.D. 33 at 34 per Nolan J.

31 See Beloff, M. and Kerr, T., “Why Aga Khan is Wrong” [1996] J.R. 30, 30–31.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., at p. 31.

33 (2000) 3 C.C.L.R. 325.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 [2006] EWHC 1948.

37 Ibid., at para. [23].

38 Ibid.

39 S.A de Smith., Lord Woolf, and J. Jowell Judicial Review of Administrative Action 5th edn. (London 1995), para. [3-027], referring to R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 921 per Sir Thomas Bingham.

40 R. v. Datafin, ex p Panel on Take-overs and Mergers [1987] Q.B. 815, 824, 825, 826 per Sir John Donaldson M.R.

41 Ibid., at pp. 826–7 per Sir John Donaldson M.R.

42 [1995] E.L.R. 350.

43 [1998] E.L.R. 389.

44 Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College Trust, [1995] E.L.R. 350, 360–1 per Dyson J.; Cobham School [1998] E.L.R. 389, 397–99 per Dyson J.

45 [2000] E.L.R. 287.

46 Ibid., at p. 294 per Richards J.

47 Ibid., at pp. 294–5.

48 A similar point has been made by Lord Neuberger in the context of s. 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998: see YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27, [134].

49 R v. Muntham House School, ex p R [2000] E.L.R. 287, 294.

50 See, for example, Klare, K., “The Public/Private Distinction in Labor Law” (1982) 130 U. Pa. L.Rev 1358, 1369–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 For a corresponding statement with regard to the converse see Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank (CA) [2001] EWCA Civ 713, [2001] 3 All E.R. 393 at 401 per Andrew Morritt V.-C.

52 But cf. D. Oliver, “Functions of a Public Nature under the Human Rights Act” [2004] P.L. 329, 329.

53 [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546.

54 [2007] UKHL 27.

55 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546, 589.

56 Ibid., at p. 554 per Lord Nicholls; p. 564 per Lord Hope; pp. 577–8 per Lord Hobhouse; and pp. 597–8 per Lord Rodger.

57 Ibid., at pp. 554, 555 per Lord Nicholls; pp. 564–5 per Lord Hope; pp. 578 per Lord Hobhouse; and pp. 597–99 per Lord Rodger.

58 See, for instance, ibid., p. 554 per Lord Nicholls; p. 561 per Lord Hope; p. 577 per Lord Hobhouse; and p. 593 per Lord Rodger.

59 See, for instance, Ibid., p. 555 per Lord Nicholls; p. 561 per Lord Hope; p. 577 per Lord Hobhouse; and p. 593 per Lord Rodger.

60 Ibid., at p. 577 per Lord Hobhouse, and p. 597 per Lord Rodger.

61 See Oliver, D., “The Frontiers of the State: Public Authorities and Public Functions under the Human Rights Act” [2000] P.L. 476, 481–2Google Scholar.

62 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546., at p. 554 per Lord Nicholls.

63 Ibid., at p. 554 per Lord Nicholls, and p. 568 per Lord Hope.

64 Ibid., at p. 554 per Lord Nicholls, and pp. 568–9 per Lord Hope.

65 Ibid., at p. 554 per Lord Nicholls, and p. 569 per Lord Hope.

66 See for instance, R. v. Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 W.L.R. 909, 930 per Farquharson L.J.; R. v. Jockey Club, ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R. 225, 241 per Stuart Smith L.J. and 246–7 per Simon Brown J.; Pannick, D., “Judicial Review of Sports Bodies” [1997] J.R. 150, 152–3.Google Scholar

67 YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [29] per Lord Scott, para. [110] per Lord Mance and paras. [129], [131] per Lord Neuberger. See also Oliver, note 61 above at 478, 479; Oliver, note 52 above, at 358.

68 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546, 555.

69 YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [10] per Lord Bingham, para. [26] per Lord Scott, para. [68] per Baroness Hale and para. [105] per Lord Mance.

70 Ibid., at para. [8] per Lord Bingham, para. [26] per Lord Scott, para. [69] per Baroness Hale, para. [102] per Lord Mance and para. [166] per Lord Neuberger.

71 Ibid., at para. [7] per Lord Bingham.

72 Ibid., at paras. [66], [72] per Baroness Hale.

73 Ibid., at para. [7] per Lord Bingham, and at para. [67] per Baroness Hale.

74 Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546, p. 555 per Lord Nicholls; YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [5] per Lord Bingham, paras. [26], [27], [28] per Lord Scott, paras, [65–73] per Baroness Hale, para. [103] per Lord Mance and para. [128] per Lord Neuberger.

75 Ibid.

76 See YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [26] (where Lord Scott suggests that the subjection of a body to competition in the carrying out of a particular function will point towards the function, as carried out by the body, being private); at [31] and [116] (where Lords Scott and Mance, respectively, suggest that the possession by a body of a commercial motivation in respect of the carrying out of a particular function will weigh in favour of the function, as carried out by that body, being private); and at [30] and [120] where the same judges suggest that if power derives from contract, a function carried out in the exercise of that power will be private. For criticisms of reliance on these indicia see S. Palmer, “Public, Private and the Human Rights Act 1998: An Ideological Divide” [2007] C.L.J. 559, 567, 570, 571.

77 See Oliver, note 52 above, p. 333.

78 See note 4 above, and the accompanying text.

79 YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [7] per Lord Bingham, para. [102] per Lord Mance and paras. [150] and [166] per Lord Neuberger.

80 Ibid., at paras. [26], [28] and [31] per Lord Scott and at para. [69] per Baroness Hale.

81 cf the narrower approach preferred by Oliver, note 52 above, at p. 336.

82 YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27 at para. [16] per Lord Bingham and para. [69] per Baroness Hale.

83 Ibid., at para. [28] per Lord Scott, para. [121] per Lord Mance, and para. [166] per Lord Neuberger.

84 Ibid., at para. [28] per Lord Scott, para. [102] per Lord Mance, and para. [166] per Lord Neuberger.

85 See the cases referred to in note 4 above.

86 Oliver, note 61 above, at pp. 480, 481.

87 See note 76 above and the accompanying text.

88 But cf. the view of Elliott that the “assumption of responsibility” factor, while not a “panacea” is nonetheless a “a sound starting-point” for distinguishing between public and private functions in the context of the HRA: see Elliott, M., “‘Public’ and ‘Private’: Defining the Scope of the Human Rights Act” [2007] C.L.J. 485, 487.Google Scholar

89 YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL 27, at para. [7] per Lord Bingham and para. [67] per Baroness Hale.

90 Ibid., at para. [135].

91 [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] Q.B. 48.

92 [2002] EWCA Civ 366, [2002] 2 All E.R. 936.

93 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v. Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] Q.B. 48, 69.

94 Ibid.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid., at p. 70.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid.

99 See also the criticisms levelled at the test in YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL at para. [61] per Baroness Hale, and para. [105] per Lord Mance.

100 For criticism of the theoretical basis of the test, see Oliver, note 52 above, 331. See also Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act (HL Paper 39, HC 382, Seventh Report of Session 2003–04) at [41], Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act (HL Paper 77, HC 410, Ninth Report of Session 2006–07) at [18].

101 See the references in note 67 above.

102 See Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote and Billesley Parochial Church Council v. Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 A.C. 546, 554 per Lord Nicholls, 577 per Lord Hobhouse and 593 per Lord Rodger; YL v. Birmingham City Council and ors [2007] UKHL at para. [129] per Lord Neuberger.

103 Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v. Donoghue [2001] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] Q.B. 48, 70.

104 Ibid.

105 Hampshire County Council v. Graham Beer [2003] EWCA Civ 1056, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 233, 248–249 per Dyson L.J., concurred with at 250 per Longmore L.J. and Sir Martin Nourse.

106 [2002] EWCA Civ 366, [2002] 2 All E.R. 936.

107 Ibid., at p. 946.

108 Ibid.

109 (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 1.

110 Ibid., at p. 41.

111 Ibid. See also the decision of the Commission in Hautanemi v. Switzerland (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. CD 156.

112 Rothenthurm Commune v. Switzerland (1988) 59 D.R. 251, 253.

113 Ayuntamiento v. Spain (1991) 68 D.R. 209, 215.

114 Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl [1994] E.C.R. 1-3325, para. [23]; Case 192/94 El Corte Ingles [1996] E.C.R. 1-281, para. [16]. English courts have in addition employed the wording “emanation of the state”: see, for instance, National Union of Teachers v. Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School [1997] I.C.R. 334, 338, 343 and 349 per Schiemann L.J., concurred with at 351 by Ward L.J. and Beldam L.J. But cf the criticism of that wording in Rolls-Royce Plc v. Doughty [1992] I.C.R. 538, 553 per Mustill L.J. concurred with at 553 by Butler-Sloss L.J. and at 554 per Sir John Megaw.

115 P. Craig, “Directives: Direct Effect, Indirect Effect and the Construction of National Legislation” (1997) 22 E.L.Rev. 519, 528.

116 Case C-188/99 Foster v. British Gas [1990] E.C.R. 1-3313, at [20]. Emphasis added.

117 Case 152/84 Marshall v. Southampton & South West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] E.C.R. 723, at [749].

118 Rolls-Royce Plc v. Doughty [1992] ICR 538, 552 per Mustill L.J., with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at 554.

119 National Union of Teachers v. Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School [1997] ICR 334, 348 per Schiemann L.J., with Ward and Beldam L.J.J concurring at 350.

120 Case C-188/99 Foster v. British Gas [1990] E.C.R. 1-3313, at [20]. Emphasis added.

121 Foster v. British Gas [1991] 2 A.C. 306, 311, concurred with at 310 by Lord Keith and at 316 by Lords Ackner and Jauncey. See, too, Schiemann L.J.'s assertion, quite without supporting analysis, in National Union of Teachers v. Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School [1997] I.C.R. 334, 350, concurred with at 351 by Ward L.J. and Beldam L.J., that “[e]ducation can be regarded as a public service.” Also note Mustill L.J.'s holding that Rolls-Royce did not provide a public service, on the peculiar basis that the services of Rolls-Royce “were provided to the state, and not to the public for purposes which were of benefit to the state”: Rolls-Royce Plc v. Doughty [1992] I.C.R. 538, 552 with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at 554.

122 Rolls-Royce Plc v. Doughty [1992] I.C.R. 538, 552 per Mustill L.J., with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at 554.

123 Ibid., at p. 552 per Mustill L.J., with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at p. 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at p. 554.

124 Ibid., at p. 552 per Mustill L.J., with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at p. 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at p. 554.

125 Ibid., at p. 552 per Mustill L.J., with Butler Sloss L.J. concurring at p. 553 and Sir John Megaw concurring at p. 554.

126 Allison, note 9 above, pp. 72–90.

127 National Union of Teachers v. Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School [1997] I.C.R. 334, 349 per Schiemann L.J., with Ward and Beldam L.JJ concurring at 350.

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid.

132 Griffin v. South West Water Services Ltd [1995] I.R.L.R. 15, 27.

133 National Union of Teachers v. Governing Body of St Mary's Church of England (Aided) Junior School [1997] I.C.R. 334, 348 per Schiemann L.J., with Ward and Beldam L.JJ concurring at 350.

134 Foster v. British Gas [1991] 2 A.C. 306, 311 per Lord Templeman, concurred with at 310 by Lord Keith and by Lords Ackner and Jauncey at 316.

135 See R. v. North East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] Q.B. 213, 244 per Woolf J.; R. v. Jockey Club, ex p Massingberd-Mundy [1993] 2 All E.R. 207, 209 per Neil L.J., 220 per Roch L.J.; R. v. Jockey Club, ex p RAM Racecourses Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R. 225, 243, 244 per Stuart-Smith L. J. See also H. Woolf, “Droit Public – English Style”, [1995] P.L. 57, 64.

136 See, for instance, Forsyth, C., “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review” [1996] C.L.J. 122, 125.Google Scholar

137 It is recognised that the Panel now derives its powers from statute: see Companies Act 2006, Part 28, Chapter 1, ss. 942–965.