THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3008 ZA

DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW

LLB

ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES

BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Administrative Law

Wednesday 4 May 2016: 14.30 – 17.45

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
None.

© University of London 2016

UL16/0212
Page 1 of 3
1. “It would be an entirely sensible development for English administrative
law wholly to abandon the concept of estoppel and instead to develop
more fully the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations.”

To what extent to you agree with this proposition?

2. “English judges have always been willing to apply proportionality as a

ground of judicial review: they just have not been willing to admit that
they have been doing so.”

Discuss.

3. Assess the proposition that Ombudsmen have made little positive

contribution to improving the conduct and outcome of government
decision-making.

4. To what extent is modern administrative law still premised to any

substantial degree on the theoretical principles outlined by A.V. Dicey
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?

5. “Leading constitutional theorists took different views of Anisminic’s

implications. Professor John Griffith felt that the courts were intruding
‘unconstitutionally’ on the sovereignty of Parliament. In contrast,
Professor Wade suggested that the threat to the constitution came not
from the judges’ apparent challenge to parliamentary sovereignty, but
from Parliament’s increasing predisposition to deploy ouster clauses to
limit or remove the courts’ powers of judicial review. In Wade’s view,
such legislation showed an unhealthy disrespect for orthodox principles
of the rule of law.” (Loveland, 2015).

Critically assess whether the view taken by Wade or by Griffith most

accurately describes the way that English courts have dealt with ouster
clauses in legislation.

6. “Perhaps the most important issues raised by the Human Rights Act
1998 are what types of bodies fall within the notion of ‘public authority’
in s.6 and to what extent the Act has ‘horizontal effect’. Thus far, the
court have not provided us with sufficiently clear answers to either
question.”

Discuss.

UL16/0212
Page 2 of 3
7. Critically explain how and for what reasons the law of standing for
judicial review was altered by the courts in the Inland Revenue
Commissioners case (1982) and in subsequent judicial decisions.

8. After it is found that numbers of soldiers given vaccinations in the Army

have been suffering from serious side effects, the Government, while
denying liability, bows to pressure and sets up a special body to make
compensation awards to affected persons. The body, the Claims for
Army Medical Reactions Authority (CAMRA), is not statutory, but
makes discretionary awards on the basis of guidelines made by the
Secretary of State for Defence.

(a) CAMRA rejects a claim from Adnams. Adnams feels he had not
enough time to prepare his case, as it was dealt with one
afternoon and he was only told that it was coming up that
morning.

(b) CAMRA rejects Bateman’s claim. The matter was dealt with on
paper, but she would have liked an oral hearing.

(c) CAMRA makes a low award to Cropton. He was allowed an oral

hearing, but not allowed to be represented by a lawyer.

(d) CAMRA rejects Dent’s claim, going by the verdict of Fuller, a

medical expert who advises them on victims’ conditions. It later
comes to light that Fuller was previously married to Dent, and
the marriage broke up acrimoniously.

(e) Everard’s award from CAMRA appears to be much lower than

those in comparable cases, but he is given no reasons for the
decision.

Advise Adnams (A), Bateman (B), Cropton (C), Dent (D) and Everard
(E) if CAMRA has acted unlawfully in their respective cases.

END OF PAPER

UL16/0212
Page 3 of 3