Welcome to my blog!

My names Aadil and I'm currently studying Law LLB at a university in London. Prior to this I studied law at A-levels for the AQA examination board and obtained a grade A in 2014.Moreover, I was also given an award for bring one of the top 10 highest achievers at my university. The aim of this blog is to make it easier for you to understand the basic concepts of law and to make your life easier! I've simplified most the work to contain the essentials and will simplify most of it with diagrams and answers that I have written.

Cases are highlighted in bold  and the main principles behind the case follow
I HAVE NOT included the facts of the cases, merely the legal reasoning.

Thanks for checking out my blog. As you can see it's a work in progress and I aim to complete this by the end of the summer! :)

Contact: Email

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dilszy

Public Law - Judicial Review Problem Question Structure

Judicial review

Judicial review is process where a high court judge will challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by a body carrying out their public functions. Public essential means governmental in nature and/or their devisions affect the general public as in a decision affecting the population
The special procedure to be followed is laid out in PART 54 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES and states that a claimant must first fill out a claim form and then this must be submitted to the high court within the time limit (3 months). Moreover, judicial review is exclusive to public law and not private law and a claim can only be brought if there are no other available remedies

In this scenario, the claimants would be________
And would be bringing action against (the defendants)
_________ would he deemed a public authority under section 6(3) of the Human rights acts 1988 as they are acting with functions amenable to the public. And so under section 6(1) of the Human rights act 1988 can be subject to review. IN ASTON CANTLOW V WALLBANK, a parochial church council was not deemed a public body
Under section 31(3) of the senior courts act 1981, standing will be ascertained by the claimants if they have 'sufficient interest' in the matter
National federation of self employed and small businesses ruled that standing will be ascertained at the full hearing and will be granted if the claimant has good grounds to seek review

If there is a human rights issues then the victim teat as laid down under section 7(3) of the Human Rights Act 1988 will be applied
In jr1's application, standing was denied as the child was not affected by the decision to use taser guns.

THE NGO will be granted standing if they have a close connection with the issue (WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT)
It must not be assumed standing will be granted to all matters as in rose theatre standing was denied
If denied standing then the group may participate in the claim as a third part intervener where they can offer advice and expertise on the matter

the grounds for review are set out in CCSU
and include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and within the last two months, pham v secretary of state for the home dept recognised proportionality as a common law ground for review

ILLEGALITY INCLUDES
Ultra vires - 'going beyond the power granted' AG V FULHAM (municipal laundry)
Fettering of discretion... LORD REID IN BRITISH OXYGEN BOARD V MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY stated that 'an authority should not shut their ears to application whens decision concerned is
ABDICATING DISCRETION
FOLLOWING ANOTHER BODYS DECISION AND NOW YOUR OWN ------- Lavender: minister of agriculture had acted unlawfully
DICTATION: ultra vires if ordered to do something ---- roncarell
IMPROPER PURPOSE: when an authority makes a decision based on an improper or ulterior purpose
ERRORS OF LAW
ERRORS OF FACT
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION - Roberts v Hopwood (ratepayer was not considered in the decision)

Irrationality essentially concerns unreasonableness and the definition of this was stated by lord greene in wednesbury whereby a decision made a body is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it"
DUFFY

Proportionality was amended as a common law ground for review following the decision in pham v secretary of state for the home dept.  It was held to be now recognised as a common law ground for review irrespective of any issues in relation to eu/echr
Daly ruled a 3 stage test that the courts should consider when dealing with proportionality
The importance of the legitimate aim
Whether the measures taken are rationally connected to that aim
And whether they were no more than necessary in achieving that aim
Huang and begum as case law demonstrate the procedure to be flowed when dealing  with review based on an echr ground

Procedural impropriety as a ground for review concerns whether theres been a breach of the rules of natural justice or if theres been a failure to follow a procedural requirement
-Failure to follow a statutory procedure: in Bradbury v enfield lbc the local authority had failed to follow the procedure laid down
-Right to be heard: john v rees ruled anyone who has to exercise a statutory right
Right to be judged free from bias : porter v magll: whether a fair minded and informed observer conclude and real possibility of bias DIMES V GJCP: Actual bias is not necessary, appearance of bias is enough to disqualify a judge from hearing a case
Consulation: coughlan
Legitimate expectation: a procedure being followed creates a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit being conferred  AG V NG YUEN SHIU: should have been listened in relation to his application

If it can be proven that the D has acted in contravention to one or more of the grounds for review then it may be possible that the courts would grant a remedy. Remedies are discretionary and are divided into ordinary(injunction, declaration, damages) and perogative (mandatory, prohibitory and quashing orders)

Quashing order revokes the previous decision
In ex part st germain an order was used

Prohibitory order stops an act from taking place

Mandatory order compels a public body/authority to do something

Injunctions can either allow the d from acting in a certain way (mandatory) or make the d stop an act prohibitory
Interim injunction allows to pressure litigants until trial

Declaration between the parties makes the position

Adverse Possession Sorted

Adverse possession is where an interest in land can be acquired simply by taking possession of the land 

In establishing a claim for adverse possession, the claimant must show that there was 

1. Factual possession

2. An intention to possess

3. Both factual possession and an intention possess were exercises over a sufficient length of time

--------------------------------------------

In establishing factual possession we must show the claimant intended to exclude all others from the land and that s/he had physical possession of the land. Seddon v Smith ruled 'enclosure to be the strongest possible form of adverse possession.

Other acts that can establish factual possession are 

- Grazing (JA PYE OXFORD V GRAHAM)

- Works of active maintenance/ improvement (Newingtom v Windyer)

- Construction of buildings/ extensions (Prudential assurance co v Waterloo real estates)

- Trivial acts are not enough (Tecbild v Chamberlain)

--------------------------------------------

Next we must establish that the claimant had animus possidendi (an intention to posses). This can be shows through 'an intention for the time being to possess the land to the exclusion of all other persons including the paper title owner' - BUCKS CC V MORAN. Any evidence of intention is sufficient and examples include fencing (BUCKS CC V MORAN), locked gates (LAMBETH LBC V BLACKBURN) etc. It must be noted that equivocal acts are not enough (Powell v Macfarlane) and an fencing without an intention to exclude other is not sufficient (Fruin v Fruin) 

--------------------------------------------

Lastly we must establish that this was done over a sufficient length of time. For land of an unregistered nature the law is governed by The Limitation Act 1980 and under S15(1) of the act a squatter can claim possession for land if s/he can show the requisite factual possession and animus possidendi for a period of 12 years ending on the date of application. If this can be proved then the squatter can claim superior title to the land and will defeat the paper titles rights. The squatter can then apply to the registrar to be the registered proprietor.

--------------------------------------------

For land of a registered nature the law is governed under The Land Registration Act 2002 and under schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) a squatter can make an application to be registered if it can be shows that s/he was in adverse possession for a period of 10 years ending on the date of application. The paper title owner and any other with an interest will then be notified (schedule 6 (2)) and they then have 65 days to write a letter of written objection (Land registration rules 2003 regulation 189). If a letter of objection is made which it most likely will then the squatters claim will be defeated unless one of the exceptions under schedule 6(4) can be proven. 

--------------------------------------------

1. Where it would be unconscionable to reject a claim of adverse possession where an estoppel has taken place

2. Where the squatter has some other right to the land such as where the estate gas been paid for it was never transferred (Bridges v Mees) 

3. Where there be a dispute in relation to a boundary 

If it any of the above exceptions can apply the Squatter can claim title to the land

If an action has not been taken by the paper title owner then all the squatter needs to do is to show adverse possession for a further two years and then they can make another application to be registered (schedule 6(6)) and this time it will be once and for all accepted and the squatter will become the new registered proprietor (schedule 6(7))

Proprietary Estoppel Sorted

If you follow this structure, it should help you understand proprietary estoppel more clearly

Proprietary estoppel was established in order to prevent an individual from insisting on his strict legal rights where it would inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties (crabb v arun)

The leading authority for this is Taylor fashion ltd v liverpool victoria trustees and sets out that in to bring a claim there must have been a representation, reliance on said representation and a detriment suffered

The claimant must show some kind of representation which lead them to believe that they would acquire rights over the land. The representation can be positive assurances and sometimes even mere silence is enough as long as it led the claimant to believe that they would acquire some rights over the land (ramsden v dyson). The assurance must be a promise (stillwell v simpson) and must express some positive rights in the land (layton v martin). The assurance can be left by will ( re basham) but must come from the owner (western fish products v penwith) and so cannot come from a witness/ tennant (gillet v holt)

Next we must go on to show that there was reliance on the above representation and that there was a change in position by the claimant (inwards v baker). There need not be a physical change in position (campbell v griffin) but leaving ones home to move in with another is sufficient ( maharas v chand). Any financial contribution must be in relation to the property (coombes v smith) and minor repairs are no sufficient (appleby v cowley) 

Lastly we must establish that a detriment was suffered on part of the claimant. The courts will only award a right where a it can be shown that reliance on the representation had left them unconscionably disadvantaged. Detriment need not be purely financial but it must be linked with the belief that it would lead to them to acquire rights in the land (re basham). We must however note that any evidence of an inequity can defeat the claim (seldmore v dalby) 

On the whole it can be established that ______ has a claim in proprietary estoppel over aadils land and so she can seek a remedy

As for remedies available to ______, they range from conveying the land, granting an occupational licence and even monetary compensation. Gillet v holt stated that "it is the job of the court to establish the maximum equity from the estoppel and then form a view as to what the minimum required is in order to satisfy justice between the parties". The court will never award more than necessary (parker v parker) and in some cases can even award less (sledmore v dalby) 

Conveying the estate depends entirely on the representation expressing interest in the estate (pascoe v turner) 

There must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment (jennings v rice) 

Monetary compensation can be awarded where the financial detriment is relatively small in relation to the value of the property ( dodsworth v dodsworth) 

And occupational licence can also be granted where it would be deemd necessary 
(Greasely v cooke)