header-logo header-logo

29 April 2010 / Julia Marlow , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7415 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Matters of fact

Charles Brasted & Julia Marlow highlight the significance of a decision being quashed due to mistake of fact

The recent Court of Appeal case of Connolly & Havering LBC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 1059 is a rare example of a decision being quashed on the basis of unfairness arising as a result of a mistake of fact, adding to the possibility that this could become an important ground in the future.

Traditional wariness

The court has long been reluctant to allow an application for judicial review on the basis of a mistake of fact, considering factual questions to be the domain of the public body in question. There is, however, some evidence (to which Connolly adds) that, as the court’s scrutiny of administrative decisions has become more intense, some of that reluctance has also begun to diminish.

The difficulty with allowing applications for judicial review on the basis of mistake of fact was usefully summarised in E v Secretary of State for the Home

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll