Croydon
R v Commissioner for Local Administration, ex p Croydon London Borough Council [1989] 1 All ER 1033
Parties and outcome
- Claimant
- Croydon London Borough Council and its education appeal committee
- Defendant
- Commissioner for Local Administration (Dr Yardley)
- Outcome
- The applicants won. The court granted declaratory relief that the Commissioner’s report was void and of no effect.
Citations in this work
Bradford
Their meaning was considered in R v Local Comr for Administration for the North and East Area of England, ex p Bradford Metropolitan City Council [1979] 2 All ER 881, [1979] QB 287 and recently has again been considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Comr for Local Administration, ex p Eastleigh BC [1988] 3 All ER 151, [1988] QB 855.
Eastleigh
Their meaning was considered in R v Local Comr for Administration for the North and East Area of England, ex p Bradford Metropolitan City Council [1979] 2 All ER 881, [1979] QB 287 and recently has again been considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Comr for Local Administration, ex p Eastleigh BC [1988] 3 All ER 151, [1988] QB 855.
Bradford
Parker LJ in the Eastleigh case [1988] 3 All ER 151 at 158, [1988] QB 855 at 868 cited with approval a passage from the judgment of Eveleigh LJ in the Bradford case ([1979] 2 All ER 881 at 902, [1979] QB 287 at 316) in which Eveleigh LJ said:
Eastleigh
Parker LJ in the Eastleigh case [1988] 3 All ER 151 at 158, [1988] QB 855 at 868 cited with approval a passage from the judgment of Eveleigh LJ in the Bradford case ([1979] 2 All ER 881 at 902, [1979] QB 287 at 316) in which Eveleigh LJ said:
Wednesbury
That is a plea to that part of the well-known case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] 2 All ER 680, [1948] 1 KB 223, which is often referred to as being “Wednesbury perverse”.
Cited by
- Dyer
Before passing from this part of the case I should mention briefly two authorities with regard to the exercise of the courts' review jurisdiction *627 over local commissioners' reports — Reg. v. Local Commissioner for Administration for the South, the West, the West Midlands, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, Ex parte Eastleigh Borough Council [1988] Q.B. 855 and Reg. v. Commissioner for Local Administration, Ex parte Croydon London Borough Council [1989] 1 All E.R. 1033 .
- Liverpool
43. Nevertheless, the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the Council identifies, as one of the issues which are said to arise on this appeal: "Issue 3. The learned judge erred in holding, contrary to the authority of R v Commissioner for Local Administration, ex p Croydon L.B.C. [1989] 1 All ER 1033, that the Respondent could have regard to the likely success of an application for judicial review in determining whether to exercise her discretion to investigate or continue to investigate a complaint and/or in determining whether there was an alternative remedy available to the local residents making the complaint to the Respondent."
- Kirkham (2006)
- JR55
16. On the particular facts of this case, there is a short answer to the Complaints Commissioner’s appeal. Under article 9(3) of the 1996 Order, he may not carry out an investigation into any actions in respect of which the complainant has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. This is, subject to article 9(4), a condition precedent to his jurisdiction. It follows, as a Divisional Court in England held about a similar provision limitation on the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration under the Local Government Act 1974, that the operation of article 9(3) cannot depend on whether the complainant’s allegations are well-founded. For the purposes of article 9(3) she has a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law if, on the assumption that her complaint was justified, she would have a remedy in court: see R v Commissioner for Local Administration, Ex p Croydon London Borough Council [1989] 1 All ER 1033, 1044.
- Kirkham & Allt (2016)
- Kirkham (2017)
- Craig (9th edn)