1st Class Judicial Review Problem Question 1

Document Content and Description Below

Judicial Review Problem Question Name Institution Course Instructor Date 1. Traditional Judicial Review: Three main parts a. Procedural requirements. The individual against whom the decision ... is made institutes a claim against the public authority in court. For a matter to qualify for a judicial review, it must posses certain qualities. It must be a decision made by a public administrator who is acting more than their powers. It should be that the public authority did not follow the proper procedure that is provided for under the law when making that decision. The individual against whom the decision is made will institute a suit in court to challenge the decision made by the public body. In the instant case, Lucy and Abed will institute a lawsuit in court against the decision by the Appeals Committee through the Committee’s Chairperson. Lucy and Abed are the Claimants, and the Appeals Committee and Its Chairperson are the Defendants. The chairperson's decision to uphold the conclusion of the Local Council is wrongful and procedural. The chairperson did not follow the proper procedure required under sections 12, 13 and 20 of the Housing Reform Act. His decision masks bias and gives him the authority granted to him by the Housing Reform Act. b. Substantive grounds for review. A decision given by a public authority must satisfy the following grounds to qualify for review. - Illegal A decision is illegal or ultra vires if the public authority that made it acted beyond its powers when giving it. This means that the public administration failed to follow the proper procedure provided for under the law that confers to it the duty to make that decision. Section 12, 13 and 20 of the Housing Reform Act provides that the Local Council may obtain any information they deem necessary from the prospective clients before granting leases. Priority is given to potential clients who have been waiting for the longest for the leases. Any person who is not happy with the Council's decision in granting the lease may challenge such a decision at the Appeal Committee. The Local Council erred in its decision by denying Lucy and Abed their lease. Such denial was bias as it considered their current employment status, their child's disability, and their parents' previous conduct. All of these have no valid bearing on their ability to maintain the lease. The Council's conduct is in contravention of the Housing Reform Act because it considered very frivolous reasons in denying Lucy and Abed a Lease. In giving the Council the power to consider relevant information about the view tenants, the act envisaged only trivial information that will affect the tenants' ability to maintain the lease. The Council erred by considering that private and unnecessary information about Lucy and Abed’s child and their parents will interfere with their obligations under the lease. Further, the Council completely ignored the fact that Lucy and Abed were at the top of the list of those who had been waiting for the lease. This is contrary to what the Housing Reform Act provides. Section 13 of the act stipulates that those waiting longer for the houses should be given priority when the leases were issued. The Council knew that Lucy and Abed qualified to get their lease because they had met this requirement. However, the Council chose to overlook this fact and instead focused on irrelevant details, which led them to deny them the lease. [Show More]

Last updated: 3 years ago

Preview 1 out of 8 pages