TOPIC 1: JURISDICTION - ERROR OF LAW, ERROR OF FACT, OUSTER
Module A: Legal Framework
→Key statutes/statutory provisions: the key principle is that Courts can review administrative decisions for errors of law (Interpretation of statutory language (court decides)); more limited review for errors of fact(What happened in the world (decision-maker decides, minimal review)).
→Error of Law - Test: 1)Did decision-maker make an error of law?, 2)Categories: misinterpretation of statute, applying wrong legal test, taking irrelevant considerations, procedural unfairness
→Error of Law - Test:
→Procedural mechanisms:
Module B: Key Cases (know holdings + WHY they matter)
→ Key Cases - Error of Law: ◌)Anisminic [1969]: Revolutionized judicial review - error of law goes to jurisdiction, making decision void (not just voidable). Broad interpretation of “error of law.”, ◌)Page [1993]: Limits to Anisminic - courts show more deference to specialist tribunals on their “home ground”, ◌)South Yorkshire Transport [1993]: Question of law = application of legal standard to facts (not pure fact-finding), ◌)Cart [2011]: Second-tier appeals very limited - only if “important point of principle or practice” or “compelling reason”, ◌)Privacy International [2019]: Ouster clauses cannot exclude judicial review for errors of law (constitutional principle)
→ Key Cases - Error of Fact: ◌)Puhlhofer [1986]: Very limited review for factual errors - only if “no evidence” to support finding, ◌)Khawaja [1984]: Exception - jurisdictional facts (e.g., immigration status) require full court review, ◌)E v Home Secretary [2004]: Recognized “mistake of fact” as independent ground of review (if material, established, unfair), ◌)Croydon [2009]: Age assessment - court can review findings of fact where decision-maker applied wrong test.
→ Ouster Clauses:◌) Anisminic: “Shall not be called into question” clause ineffective - error of law makes decision nullity, ◌)Cart: Very restrictive ouster (second appeals from UT) upheld as proportionate, ◌)Privacy International: “Conclusive” clause cannot exclude JR for errors of law, ◌)JRCA 2022 s2: Codifies Cart - limited review of UT decisions
Module C: Theoretical Debates
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module D: Critical Tensions/Problems
→Doctrinal contradictions:
→Gaps or uncertainties:
→Problematic applications:
Module E: Empirical/Practical
→ How law operates in practice
→ Institutional constraints
→Evidence of effectiveness/failure
Module F: Reform/Development
→ Proposals for change
→ Recent developments
→ Future directions
Module A: Legal Framework
→Key statutes/statutory provisions:
→Leading cases with holdings:
→Procedural mechanisms:
Module B: Key Cases (know holdings + WHY they matter)
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module C: Theoretical Debates
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module D: Critical Tensions/Problems
→Doctrinal contradictions:
→Gaps or uncertainties:
→Problematic applications:
Module E: Empirical/Practical
→ How law operates in practice
→ Institutional constraints
→Evidence of effectiveness/failure
Module F: Reform/Development
→ Proposals for change
→ Recent developments
→ Future directions
Module A: Legal Framework
→Key statutes/statutory provisions:
→Leading cases with holdings:
→Procedural mechanisms:
Module B: Key Cases (know holdings + WHY they matter)
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module C: Theoretical Debates
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module D: Critical Tensions/Problems
→Doctrinal contradictions:
→Gaps or uncertainties:
→Problematic applications:
Module E: Empirical/Practical
→ How law operates in practice
→ Institutional constraints
→Evidence of effectiveness/failure
Module F: Reform/Development
→ Proposals for change
→ Recent developments
→ Future directions
Module A: Legal Framework
→Key statutes/statutory provisions:
→Leading cases with holdings:
→Procedural mechanisms:
Module B: Key Cases (know holdings + WHY they matter)
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module C: Theoretical Debates
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module D: Critical Tensions/Problems
→Doctrinal contradictions:
→Gaps or uncertainties:
→Problematic applications:
Module E: Empirical/Practical
→ How law operates in practice
→ Institutional constraints
→Evidence of effectiveness/failure
Module F: Reform/Development
→ Proposals for change
→ Recent developments
→ Future directions
Module A: Legal Framework
→Key statutes/statutory provisions:
→Leading cases with holdings:
→Procedural mechanisms:
Module B: Key Cases (know holdings + WHY they matter)
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module C: Theoretical Debates
→2-4 fundamental scholarly disagreements:
→ Competing theoretical frameworks:
→ Different schools of thought (red light/green light/amber light, etc.):
Module D: Critical Tensions/Problems
→Doctrinal contradictions:
→Gaps or uncertainties:
→Problematic applications:
Module E: Empirical/Practical
→ How law operates in practice
→ Institutional constraints
→Evidence of effectiveness/failure
Module F: Reform/Development
→ Proposals for change
→ Recent developments
→ Future directions
