WARNING.

The format of this question paper was changed due the COVID-19 pandemic and applies to the 2019-20 examinations only.

LA2008 July ZB

Administrative law

Friday 24 July 2020

You will have TWO HOURS AND 45 MINUTES in which to answer the
questions, including 15 minutes reading time. You must answer all parts of a
question unless otherwise stated.

You will have an additional 30 minutes to download the examination paper and
to upload your saved answers to the VLE; this time should be used solely for
these purposes.

You must answer TWO of the following EIGHT questions.

© University of London 2020

Page 1 of 3
WARNING. The format of this question paper was changed due the COVID-19 pandemic and applies to the 2019-20 examinations only.

1. “The duty to give reasons fulfils a number of important purposes in

administrative law. The development of the law on the duty to give
reasons by the courts reflects this.”

Discuss.

2. “[I]t seems to me that, unless the procedure adopted by the moving party
is ill suited to dispose of the question at issue, there is much to be said
in favour of the proposition that a court having jurisdiction ought to let a
case be heard rather than entertain a debate concerning the form of the
proceedings.” Per. Lord Lowry in Roy v. Kensington and Chelsea and
Westminster Family Practitioner Committee (1992).

In light of the observation above, analyse the extent to which the strict
distinction imposed by the decision of the House of Lords in O’Reilly v.
Mackman (1983) remains.

3. “The decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic v. Foreign

Compensation Commission (1969) leaves no uncertainty over the issue
of jurisdictional error.”

Discuss.

4. “Judicial control of administrative discretion would be improved

significantly if the courts accepted that the Wednesbury test should be
replaced by the proportionality test in all circumstances.”

Discuss.

5. “The ultra vires doctrine provides the most compelling set of justifications
for judicial review in England and Wales.”

Discuss.

6. “The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Parliamentary

Ombudsman) provides an effective means of redress for people
aggrieved by the actions of public authorities.”

Discuss.

7. “The Human Rights Act 1998 has had a profound impact on the
development of the principles of judicial review in England and Wales.”

Discuss.

Page 2 of 3
WARNING. The format of this question paper was changed due the COVID-19 pandemic and applies to the 2019-20 examinations only.

8. The (fictitious) Meat Safety Commission (MSC) was set up by statute to

ensure the safety of cooked meats in England and Wales following a
number of outbreaks of food poisoning caused by the consumption of
cooked meats in the past year. The Commission was given powers by
statute to: (1) prohibit the sale of cooked meats where they were found
to pose a risk of food poisoning; and (2) order the closure of cooked
meat producers and the destruction of stocks where a food poisoning
risk is found.

The MSC has taken the following actions:

(a) The MSC banned the sale of ‘Wiltshire Honeyglaze’ ham and
ordered the closure of the factory and the destruction of all stocks
after a slightly raised level of bacteria that may cause food
poisoning was found in one small batch of the meat, but not any
of the other stock. Adam, the owner of the factory that produces
‘Wiltshire Honeyglaze’ is aggrieved by this decision.

(b) Mirza owns a factory that produces cooked chicken products from
organic chickens. The MSC has a published policy banning all
cooked chicken products from organic chickens due to the
elevated risk of food poisoning. Mirza believes that his product is
not affected by the same food safety risks as other similar
products, but the MSC has refused to consider departing from its
policy.

(c) The MSC promised the Association of Cooked Meat

Manufacturers (ACMM) that it would be consulted before the
publication of its policy. ACMM is aggrieved that it was not
consulted.

(d) The MSC banned the sale of cooked beef from the ‘Newbold
Lodge’ factory. Philippa, the owner of the factory, has not been
given any reasons for the decision and the MSC has refused to
allow her to make representations.

Advise Adam, Mirza, the Association of Cooked Meat Manufacturers and

Philippa whether the MSC has acted unlawfully in their respective cases
and on whether it will be possible to claim judicial review in order to seek
redress.

END OF PAPER

Page 3 of 3