Administrative Law: WORKSHEET 2 FEB

Errors of Fact:

Public Bodies have the authority to make decisions within their jurisdictions
Fiadjoe page 49 I guess

Mistakes are made that are not so fundamental as to go to jurisdcition, but some
may be fundamental so that they go to jurisdiction.

Lord Reid: Jurisdiction is the authority of the tribunal to enter upon the enquiry in
question.

Errors of fact refer to decisions based on no evidence

Re lla material errors of fact

• R v Board of Supervision ex p Ferguson (1934) 2 JLR 94

Dismissal of an expector qushed on the ground that the decision to dismiss was
based on no evidence.

absence of evidence is a ground for judicial review

R v Hackney on Jurisdictional Facts - A rent tribunal may have the power to lower
the rent of a dwelling house but mistakenly found that the property was a dwelling
house when in fact it was let as a business property therefore the order was ultra
vires and null and void as the mistake took the tribunal outside of its jurisdiction, it
was a mistake of fact, non-jurisdictional fact.

non jurisdictional facts: these mistakes have no bearing on the limits of power :
wade and foresight page 208...
according to the authors, a factual mistake has become a ground of judicial review.
- Tame side case is Authority for this proposition. A misunderstanding of an
established and relevant fact - • Secretary of State for Education and Science v
Tameside MBC
[1977] AC 1014
Lord wilberforce ref lord denning stated the court can intervene if a minister
clearly misdirected himself in fact or law. The court must enquire whether the facts
exist and have been taken into account. Page 360 of wade and foresight of wade
and foresight.

ERRORS OF LAW

R v Fulham (1950) page 209 Wade and foresight

Authors pointed out that in the past distinctions will be made about jurisdictional
and non-jurisdictional questions of law.

In this case the tribunal made a mistake of law and acted in excess of his powers.

Anisminic case on errors - stretched the concept of error of law to such a point that
the possibility of non-jurisdictional error was eliminated.

Anisminic case also deals with Ouster Clauses : In this case the British company
was refused compensation , their property in Egypt was confiscated and the foreign
compensations commission refused to give any compensation - sold to an Egyptian
company, when the British company made its claim for compensation...successor
in title should not be of a different nationality but that was an error of law, the issue
of successor in title would only apply if the original owner was not the claimant.

Next week Worksheet 3 on natural justice

Errors of Fact
 
Old Rule - The court would quash, only if the erroneous fact was jurisdictional
The public body went outside its scope/jurisdiction by carrying out administrative
authority, based on flawed facts. One's scope of power/jurisdiction is based on
facts.
 
New Rule - (more expansive, additional grounds)
A. Jurisdictional
B. Found on the basis of no evidence
Absence of evidence on which a finding or assumption of fact could be based
should be grounds for JR. Re Lalla ' a material finding of fact is irrational in the
absence of evidence warranting such a finding"
C. Wrong, misunderstood or ignored
Mere factual mistake has become a ground of judicial review.
 
Errors of Law
 
Old Rule - The court would quash if the error regarding law was:
 
A. Jurisdictional; 
Going outside scope set by law in making a decision.
R v Fulham etc. Rent Tribunal
 
B. On the face of the record (This is error in jurisdiction) 
Used the wrong law in making decision or coming to a determination.
 
New Rule:
Once making any error in respect to the law, you’ve gone out of your jurisdiction.
Whether it’s a misunderstanding, decisive error etc. Its jurisdictional. Periodt.
 
All errors of law are jurisdictional. Even acting in Jurisdiction and using the right
law but frame the question incorrectly. It’s going outside scope -
Anisminic Case - The law gave jurisdiction to look on Compensation and
succession in titles. They Imposed a requirement that wasn’t needed. A tribunal had
now, in effect had no power to decide any questions of law incorrectly.