The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1978

BOOK REVIEWS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

misconstrued their functions, and accordingly the Company was entitled to participate in the Compensation Fund. A rather similar case is Lavender v. the Minister of Housing (1970) 1 W.L.R. 1231, where the High Court reversed the Minister's finding that land at Walton-on- Thames, although high quality agricultural land, was suitable for housing purposes. A similar case was Robertson v. Minister for Pensions (1949) 1 K.B. 227, where Denning J. held that a War Office letter stating that the plaintiffs disability was attributable to military service superseded a decision of the Ministry of Pensions that this disability had been due to a train accident in 1927. Another famous case where there was manifest abuse of discretion was that of Pacffteld v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) A.C. 997, where the House of Lords granted a Mandamus against the Minister on the ground that he should either have referred a complaint to the relevant Committee or dealt effectively with the complaints on relevant considerations. The leading case of auditors surcharging a local authority — Roberts v. Hopwood( 1925) A.C. 578 — is also included, as is that of the Secretary of State for Education v. Tameside (1976) 3 All E.R. 665, where the Minister endeavoured unsuccessfully to compel the local authority to adopt a system of comprehensive education. In Howard v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) Q.B. 235, the Court of Appeal rejected the Minister's contention that an appeal to him could not be made under the Town Planning Act, 1968, because it was allegedly a few days late, and granted the appellant a declaration to appeal. On the basis that one of the tenets of Natural Justice is the duty to act fairly, the famous cases of Errington v. Minister of Health (1935) 1 K.B. 249, and Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) A.C. 40, are fully dealt with, as is the case of R. v. Gaming Board, Ex P. Benaim, (1970) 2 Q.B. where the Board refused to give the directors of Crockford's gaming club a certificate, and would not give reasons for their refusal; the applicants obtained a Certiorari to quash the refusal, and a Mandamus to compel the Board to enable them to answer a case against them. In Re Godden (1911) 3 All E.R. 20, orders of prohibition and Mandamus were granted by the Court of Appeal against the Kent Police Authority for dismissing the appellant police officer by fabricated evidence that he was insane. In Colleen Properties v. Minister of Housing (1971) 1 W.L.R. 443, a departmental inspector was appointed to determine whether Clark House, the property of the plaintiffs, was suitable as a clearance area for new housing, and he reported that it was not; nevertheless the Minister confirmed the clearance order; the owners applied successfully to the Court to quash the Minister's order. Finally in Attorney-General (McWhirter) v. Independent Broadcasting Authority (1973) 1 Q.B. 629, the complainant's attempt to obtain an injunction to stop a film from being shown on television by defendants on the ground of indecency was upheld. These examples will have shown that, particularly in the last 15 years, the English Court of Appeal and House of Lords have attempted more forceably to apply principles of Natural Justice. The fact that this volume contains no less than 635 pages has ensured that the learned authors have covered all the relevant material with ample notes. The fact that a paperback can now cost as much as £12.75 shows how much the cost of printing and production have risen within the last year, but this volume is absolutely indispensable for all local authority solicitors.

BAILEY, S.H., C.A. Cross and J.F. Garner, Cases and materials in Administrative Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1977. xxxix, 635p. Paperback, £12.75. Professor Garner of Nottingham is a well-known expert on Administrative Law. The fact that he has allowed his name to be associated with that of his lecturer, Mr. Bailey, and with that of Mr. Cross, the barrister author of an authentic textbook on English Local Government Law, should ensure authority for the contents of this volume. Part 1 (152 pages) deals with English Administrative procedures, particularly the relevant parts of the Franks Committee Report of July, 1957, and the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1974, the Reports of the Council on Tribunals with an article by Professor Garner, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967, setting up an Ombudsman, and the Report of the Donoughrnore Committee on Ministers Powers (1932). The case of R. v. Customs Commissioners Ex Parte Cook, [1970] 1A11 E.R. 1068, in which the applicant bookmakers moved for an order of Mandamus requiring the Commissioners of Customs to issue licenses only to such applicants as had paid the bookmaker's duty by monthly instalments in accordance with arrangements made under the Finance Act, 1969, as opposed to those who had paid the whole duty in advance; this was refused. The judgments in other recent English cases relating to such matters as absolute privilege in defamation, dismissal of appeal against surcharge by auditor, disclosure of interest by members, and rights of the public to attend Council meetings are also dealt with. By far the greater part of the work deals with material relating to Judicial Review. The first subject dealt with is Want of Power. Many of the cases relate to rent restriction and could doubtless be compared to similar Irish cases. An instance would be White and Collins v. Minister of Health (1939) 2 K.B. 838. In this case Ripon Borough Council made an order for the compulsory purchase of 23 acres forming part of the grounds of "Highfield" containing 35 acres in all. These 23 acres were then let for grazing. The various owners objected that the land was part of a park and required for the amenity of the house. The owners unsuccessfully applied to the High Court for the order to be quashed, but they succeeded in the Court of Appeal; this resembles somewhat the Irish case of Geraghty v. The Minister for Local Government (1976) I.R. 153. The most famous case relating to excess of jurisdiction was the famous House of Lords decision in die Anisminic case — (1969) 2 A.C. 147. Before the Suez incident in 1956, the plaintiff English company owned property in Egypt which was sequestrated in 1956 by the Egyptian organisation, T.E.D.O. In 1959, the plaintiffs made an application to the British Foreign Compensation Commission claiming they were persons entitled to participate in the Egyptian Compensation Fund in respect of this property. The Commission decided provisionally that they had failed to establish a claim. The plaintiffs claimed that this provisional order was void, as the Commission had misconstrued the order in finding that T.E.D.O. was their successor in title. This contention was upheld by the House of Lords, as the Commission had 24