O'Reilly v Mackman
Public law challenges must normally be brought by judicial review, and using an ordinary claim to avoid its safeguards is an abuse of process.
Facts
Four prisoners at Hull prison were found guilty of disciplinary offences by the prison's Board of Visitors after a riot, and lost remission of their sentences. Instead of applying for judicial review, which had a short time limit and required permission, they brought ordinary civil actions seeking declarations that the Board's decisions were void because of breaches of natural justice.
Legal principle
The House of Lords struck out the actions as an abuse of the process of the court. Lord Diplock said that the prisoners' claims depended entirely on public law, and that it would as a general rule be contrary to public policy, and as such an abuse of the process of the court, to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed rights to which he was entitled to protection under public law to proceed by way of an ordinary action and thereby evade the provisions of Order 53 for the protection of such authorities. The safeguards of judicial review, such as the requirement for leave and the short time limit, existed to protect public authorities from unmeritorious or delayed challenges. This became known as the procedural exclusivity rule, which later cases relaxed.
Related cases on judicial review: scope, standing and ouster clauses
- Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663
- R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, [2020] AC 491
- R (Walton) v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44
- R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909
- R v Hull University Visitor, ex p Page [1993] AC 682
- R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
- R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
