GELLB Con & Admin

Term 2

Formative 2 – Judicial Review Problem Question

General Feedback

Overall

On the whole, those who answered the formative (21 students) did well. There were:

 4 Firsts (70+);
 10 2:1s (60+);
 6 2:2s (50+),
 1 Pass (40+).

Happily, there were no fails, and the above breakdown is pretty standard.

Strengths

 Generally, students showed a capable background knowledge of most of the key

requirements for a judicial review application to proceed.
 Knowledge of the tests for standing was particularly good, with a detailed knowledge of key
cases (esp. Rose Theatre; Greenpeace).
 The conclusions reached were generally logical. The strongest answers supported these
conclusions with a detailed application of the case law to the facts of the question – paying
attention to similarities, and any differences which might affect how they apply to the
scenarios. E.g. setting out the considerations taken into account in Greenpeace and
considering how these map on to Church of Homer for representative/associational
standing.

Areas to improve

 Scope/reading the question carefully

o A number of answers strayed into considering in some detail the potential grounds
of JR and trying to apply these to the facts, in addition to the preliminary issues
(standing etc). If the question does not say otherwise, this is the correct approach:
advise on all stages of a JR claim.
o Here, however, the question asked you to advise only on the formal
requirements/prerequisites – i.e. amenability; standing; time limits/permissions.
Detailed analysis of potentially relevant grounds, without explaining how it would
impact on these preliminary issues, was therefore outside the scope of the question.
This was not only a waste of words, but meant the answer lacked focus.
o Lesson: read the question carefully.

 Style/structure for problem questions:

o A number of answers included essay style discussions, such as providing general
background to the law, or critical commentary. Often this came with detailed
introductions on the purpose and development of judicial review generally.
 o These kinds of discussions are not well-suited for problem questions. For problems,
the focus is on applying the relevant law to the facts in the scenarios given. Only
information and detail that is used to apply to the law to the facts should be given.
Case law, legislation, and other primary rules are most important for this purpose.

 Structure of analysis:
o It is important to be as clear and efficient as possible in applying the law to the facts.
Something like the following structure for each of the legal issues helps achieve this,
helps ensure all issues are covered, and can also help resist the urge to stray into
essay territory:
 Issue – what is the legal issue which arises on the facts (e.g. “does Ned have
standing to bring a claim?”
 Law – what is the law/rule used to determine this issue?
 Apply – how does this law apply to the facts in the scenario?
 Conclude – what is the likely outcome on that issue?
o Do the above for each of the legal issues for a thorough and well-reasoned answer.
o This is a better structure than setting out a full summary of all of the legal principles
in the area (including ones which are not relevant) and then repeating them again
when applying to the facts. It is better because it is focussed on the situation from
the start.