LA2008 May B1

LLB
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Administrative law

Monday 14 June 2021

BLOCK 1 Available at: 06:00 UK time on Monday 14 June 2021.

Submit before: 11:00 UK time on Monday 14 June 2021.

You have FIVE HOURS in which to write your answers and upload them in the
required .doc or .docx format to the VLE. You are not expected to spend more
than FOUR HOURS writing your answers. The remaining hour is for
downloading, uploading, and to take short rest breaks.

You must answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions. You must answer
all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

© University of London 2021

UL21/0288
Page 1 of 3
1. ‘…The implication that procedural and substantive legitimate
expectation forms an undifferentiated body of doctrine that grows from a
single normative root is highly questionable.’ (Mark Elliott.)

Discuss.

2. ‘The law on procedural fairness in administrative decision-making

promotes good public administration. This is illustrated in many
important judicial decisions.’

Discuss.

3. ‘The barriers faced by claimants in judicial review proceedings are

excessive and deter many worthy claims.’

Discuss.

4. ‘Those who suggest that the approach to judicial review of the exercise
of administrative discretion using the Wednesbury principle is
significantly different to that of the proportionality principle are mistaken.’

Discuss.

5. ‘The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the principles of judicial
review has been very significant.’

Discuss.

6. ‘Any effort to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in judicial review is an

illegitimate infringement of the rule of law principle.’

Discuss.

7. ‘The British Ombudsman model was designed to fit alongside other

means of remedying citizens' grievances, such as challenge in the
courts, appeal to tribunals, the right to be heard at a public inquiry, and
parliamentary means. Although each remedy may be effective in the
appropriate situation, each has its particular limitations.’ (Bradley, Ewing
and Knight.)

Discuss, with particular emphasis on the virtues and limitations of the

courts and the ombudsmen and considering section 5(2) of the
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

UL21/0288
Page 2 of 3
8. The (fictitious) Harbour Safety Act 2020 was enacted by Parliament to
deal with numerous incidents where ships have collided or created a
danger while docking at ports in the United Kingdom. The Harbour
Safety Act 2020 requires all ships wishing to dock in United Kingdom
ports to be piloted to dock by an “approved person”. The Secretary of
State for Transport is given power under the Act to grant “approved
person” status at specific ports to “those deemed to be appropriately
qualified”. The Act also empowers the Secretary of State to prohibit
specific ships or types of ship from harbours in the United Kingdom
where he believes such ships pose “excessive risk of collision or loss of
control”.

(a) Captain Haddock, an experienced ship’s captain with

considerable experience of piloting ships into the Port of
Liverpool, has been denied “approved person” status. He was not
given an opportunity to make representations before the decision
was made and was given no reasons for the decision.

(b) The owners of the “Ocean Princess”, a large passenger cruise

ship, have received notice that the ship will be banned from
docking at a number of popular ports in the South Coast of
England as the Secretary of State has determined that it poses
“an excessive risk of collision”. The “Ocean Princess” has never
been involved in a collision or any other incident while docking
and the owners believe that the real reason is a desire to reduce
the environmental impact of large numbers of visitors to a number
of historical locations on the South Coast.

(c) The Association of Seafarers, a representative group for those

who work as pilots and captains of ships, wishes to challenge a
decision by the Secretary of State to ban all container ships with
a length greater than 300 metres as he believes that such ships
are at too great a risk of losing control.

(d) Captain Barnacle was originally designated as an “approved

person” for the ports of Goole, Immingham and Hull. After a minor
collision that caused minimal damage and was determined not to
be the fault of Captain Barnacle by an investigation, the Secretary
of State has revoked Captain Barnacle’s “approved person”
status. Captain Barnacle was given a hearing before a senior civil
servant in the Department of Transport prior to the revocation and
was informed after the hearing that his status would be revoked
with immediate effect.

Advise Captain Haddock, the owners of the “Ocean Princess”, The

Association of Seafarers and Captain Barnacle whether there is any
unlawful action in their respective cases and on whether it will be
possible to claim judicial review in order to seek redress.

END OF PAPER

UL21/0288
Page 3 of 3