Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] APP.L.R. 12/17
	Judicial Review : Ouster Clauses. House of Lords. 17th December 1968.
by Lords Reid; Morris; Pearce; Wilberforce; Pearson. Crown Copyright

	Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] APP.L.R. 11/10
	Judicial Review. The Wednesdury Reasonable Test. Could a reasonable decision maker have reached the decision under review? CA. 10th November 1947
by Lord Greene, MR.; Somervell LJ; Justice Singleton. Crown Copyright

	Black Clawson International Ltd v. Papierwerke AG [1975] APP.L.R. 03/05
	Conflicts of law : s8 of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933.. Statutory interpretation House of Lords. 5th March 1975.
by Viscount Dilhorne; Lords Reid; Wilberforce; Diplock; Simon of Glaisdale. Crown Copyright

	Cocks v Thanet DC [1982] APP.L.R. 11/25
	Public / private law divide : Duty of housing authority to house the homeless. House of Lords on appeal from QBD. 25th November 1982
by Lords Diplock; Fraser; Keith; Bridge ; Brightman.

	Davy v Spelthorne BC [1983] APP.L.R. 10/13
	Judicial Review : sequel to O-Reilly v. Mackman. The circumstances in which a person with a cause of action against a public authority, which is connected with the performance of its public duty, is entitled to proceed against the authority by way of an ordinary action, as distinct from an application for judicial review. House of Lords. 13th October 1983
by Lords Fraser of Tullybelton; Wilberforce; Roskill; Brandon; Brightman. Crown Copyright

	Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1980] APP.L.R. 07/10
	Interpretation : foreign conventions : Loss of contents of a suitcase – loss from baggage : did the convention permit recovery for partial loss in addition to total loss? Official version of the Warsaw Convention was in French. Did the word avarie translate into damage or was it limited to the technical marine insurance version of average? Could the traveaux preparatoire be looked at for assistance? Yes : Conclusion – partial loss recoverable : but in the circumstances recovery failed – loss not notified within 7 days. House of Lords. 10th July 1980.
by Lords Wilberforce; Diplock ; Fraser ; Scarman ; Roskill. Crown Copyright

	Law v National Greyhound Racing Club [1983] APP.L.R. 07/29
	Judicial Review : Application of JR to private regulatory regimes. Abuse of Process - Civil versus Public Law procedures. 29th July 1983.
by Lawton LJ; Fox LJ; Slade LJ. Crown Copyright

	O Reilly v Mackman [1983] APP.L.R. 11/25
	Judicial Review : Availability of declaration in lieu of failed application for certiorari (quashing order). Held : Abuse of process to attempt to override the prerogative regime. House of Lords. 25th November 1983.
by Lords Diplock; Fraser ; Keith ; Bridge; Brightman. Crown Copyright

	Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1978] APP.L.R. 07/14
	Judicial Review : Statutory Ouster Clauses : Distinction between errors of law on the face of the record - non reviewable and Errors of law going to jurisdiction - reviewable. 14th July 1978.
by Lords Denning; Geoffrey Lane LJ; Eveleigh LJ. Crown Copyright

	R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p. The Aga Khan [1992] APP.L.R. 12/04
	Judicial Review - private disciplinary regime - remedy lies in civil law for breach of contract : 4th December 1992.
by Sir Thomas Binqham MR. Farquharson LJ; Hoffmann LJ. Crown Copyright

	R v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex p. Walsh [1984] APP.L.R. 05/14
	Judicial Review : Private disciplinary committee - contract of employment : Civil law rights - breach of contract : Not a public law issue : no judicial review. 14th May 1984.
by MR : May LJ; Purchas LJ. Crown Copyright

	R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex p. Benaim [1970] APP.L.R. 03/23
	Judicial Review : Standing : distinction between legal rights and expectations : Gaming Board had to be convinced of a gambling operator’s propriety : It received information from sources whose identity was withheld that Crockfords Casino (which had been breaking the law with impunity for many years) was not above reproach. Crockfords asserted that unless the sources and content were disclosed the Board should not be able to take that evidence into account. Held : An applicant for a new licence does not have right to the full panoply of rights to a judicial hearing – merely to be heard and put its case – and Crickfords had had that and failed to establish to the satisfaction of the board that it was a fit body to be licenced. CA. 23rd March 1970.
by Lord Denning MR ; Lord Wilberforce ; Phillimore LJ. Crown Copyright

	R v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries ex p. Padfield [1968] APP.L.R. 02/14
	Forum conveniens : Whether or not arbitration was suitable for the resolution of this dispute or whether it was outside the scope of arbitration. House of Lords. 14th Febraury 1968.
by Lords Reid; Morris ; Hodson ; Pearce ; Upjohn. Crown Copyright

	R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p. Datafin Plc [1986] APP.L.R. 12/05
	Judicial Review : Public or Civil Law? Held : Panel performs public functions - procedings amenable to judicial review. 5th December 1986
by Sir John Donaldson MR; Lloyd LJ; Nicholls LJ. Crown Copyright

	Racal Communications Ltd, Re [1980] APP.L.R. 07/03
	Judicial Review : Inter-relationship of judicial review to statutory ouster clauses against appeal. House of Lords. 3rd July 1980.
by Lords Diplock; Salmon; Edmund-Davies; Keith; Scarman. Crown Copyright

	Ridge v Baldwin (No 1) [1963] APP.L.R. 03/14
	Judicial Review : Circumstances where there is a public duty to a hearing - extent of hearing - natural justice and due process. House of Lords. 14th March 1963.
by Lords Reid; Evershed; Morris of Borth-y-Gest; Hodson; Devlin. Crown Copyright

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.