Porter v Magill
The test for apparent bias is whether a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.
Facts
Dame Shirley Porter was the leader of Westminster City Council in the late 1980s. The council's Conservative leadership adopted a policy of selling council homes in marginal wards, known as the Building Stable Communities policy, in the hope that new owners would be more likely to vote Conservative. The district auditor, Mr Magill, found that the policy was an unlawful use of the council's powers for electoral advantage, and surcharged Dame Shirley and her deputy about £31 million. They argued, among other things, that the auditor had been biased, because he had announced his provisional findings at a press conference.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the surcharge, holding that the councillors had used the council's powers for the improper purpose of gaining electoral advantage. On the question of bias, Lord Hope stated the modern test for apparent bias: the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. This test, which brought English law into line with the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, replaced the real danger test in R v Gough. Applying it, the auditor's press conference, although unwise, did not show apparent bias.
Related cases on judicial review: procedural impropriety and legitimate expectations
- Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180
- Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
- Re Finucane's Application for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7
- Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625
- McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520
- R (Bibi) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237
- R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56, [2014] 1 WLR 3947
- R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC 1115
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.
