This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Administrative Law: Remedies Notes

Admin Law Remedies Breach Of Statutory Duty And The Frankovich Doctrine 1 Notes

Updated Admin Law Remedies Breach Of Statutory Duty And The Frankovich Doctrine 1 Notes

Administrative Law: Remedies Notes

Administrative Law: Remedies

Approximately 146 pages

These notes are on a wide variety of topics in administrative law: remedies. The topics include breach of a statutory duty and the EU frankovich doctrine, the doctrines of: void ab initio, collateral attack and habeas corpus, remedies for a breach of statutory duty, remedies for a breach of constitutional rights and ECHR rights, costs as a bar to judicial review, damages for breach of a statutory duty, the recovery of illegally obtained taxes/ money, negligence in public office, discretionary bar...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Administrative Law: Remedies Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY  May provide a remedy and evade the heavy burdensome restrictions for negligence and misfeasance  But still a very high onus - must prove clear intention of parliament that remedies would be available to the aggrieved ORIGIN • • Used to be for servants who worked in factories whose employers did not observe proper safety standards. Extended to failure to comply or observe duties that the legislature has placed on the executive LEADING DEFINITION Atlantic Marine Supplies Ltd v Minister for Transport [2010] IEHC 104 Must be a breach of:'a duty intended for protection of the plaintiff where it was intended by the legislature that an aggrieved plaintiff would be entitled to claim damages.' a. Duty intended for protection of P b. Intention on part of legislature that the P would receive damages as a result of the breach DUTIES? • • Any 'shall' legislation is a positive duty The question transpires to be: if they fail to comply with that obligation, what are the remedies for the affected party? Can they claim damages? Rarely so. 'CLEAR INTENTION' 1. Must be a clear intention by parliament.- The plaintiff must be in a class of people intended to be directly protected by the legislation, because if the legislature didn't intend to protect you specifically, it didn't intend for you to have a claim for damages. However, the protection must not extend beyond that niche class. (i) Alternative remedy • • Same as other parliamentary justifications If there are other remedies available, the applicant should not pursue a tort claim against the legislature - not the intention so (1) is rebutted (ii) Where the language in the legislation is vague or is framed in a vague manner • Dependent on the intensity of the language used. High intensity duty - more likely intent STATUTE NOT CREATED FOR THE SOLE BENEIFT OF THE PLAINTIFF's CLASS O'Rourke v Camden Borough 1997 2 WLR 86 s. 63 of the Housing Act 1985 provided that where the housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless and have priority needs, they shall secure accommodation for that person. The borough had taken him in, accommodated him but: The applicant was homeless and in priority need, however, was evicted by the authority.First condition not satisfied because s. 63 was not enacted solely for the benefit of the homeless'public money is spent on housing the homeless not merely for the private benefit of the homeless but on grounds of general public interest: because, for example, proper housing means that people will be less likely to suffer illness, turn to crime or require the attention of other social services.'If the statute creates a duty to protect a certain class of people but that protection is also in the general public interest, the claim will fail for not satisfying the first condition.Must be a private matter between C and the public authority As Costello noted, no public legislation is a private matter directly between the plaintiff and the legislature. There's a policy behind it all. Always possible to find some secondary objective, and this case is an example. Not only does the argument basically place a bar on all cases, but the weakness of the arguments used in this case illustrates just how strict the barrier to accessing damages is, especially in light of the strength of this case. There is a clear-cut and direct link between the duty and the claimant - no ambiguity. REBUTTAL/ CONTRA-INDICATORS OF INTENTION i. THE PRESENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY Cullen v Chief Constable of Ulster [2002] UKSC. Applicant detained on suspicion for acts of terrorism. He repeatedly requested a lawyer when he was being questioned and the police repeatedly refused to provide one. The NI (emergency provisions) act 1987, s 15 (1) (a) provided that a person detained under terrorism provisions were entitled to consult a solicitor privately. Thus, by continue to deny him a solicitor, he claimed that the police were breaching a statutory duty. Majority:No clear intention of parliament because alternative remedy of JR - an order of mandamus to oblige compliance w duty Minority

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Administrative Law: Remedies Notes.