Constitutional Law | Assignment

Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW1
Answer 1
Issue
The primary issue in relation to the provided scenario is whether the Students’ Union as
well as Lenny shall be able to challenge the decision of Vice Chancellor with the help of a
judicial review.
Rule
In this regard, the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil
Service [1985] AC 3741 must be regarded as an appropriate case. In this specific case, certain
grounds were summarized by the court in order to reverse an administrative decision with the
help of a judicial review. These grounds were ‘legitimate expectation’, ‘procedural impropriety’,
‘irrationality’, and ‘illegality’.
The case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984]
AC 742 shall be considered to be a pertinent case in connection to the provided scenario. In this
particular case, it was stated that any particular court may quash or suppress a forwarded
decision when the relevant authority may have misconstrued or misinterpreted any legal term or
assessed any fact in an incorrect manner, which is crucial for making the decision that whether
such authority has the specific powers or not. However, if any term, which must be assessed by
the authority, is so unclear, indefinite or extensive that any reasonable and practical individual
may sensibly disagree regarding its meaning or connotation, then the authority shall have the
discretion to assess the meaning of that term. For instance, in the case of R v Hillingdon Borough
Council, ex parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 4843, the local authority was obligated to provide
1 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
2 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74.
3 R v Hillingdon Borough Council, ex parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 484.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW2
accommodation to homeless persons. In this specific case, a married couple were the applicants
who made an application for aid in respect of the local authority. Aid was declined by the local
authority because it was presumed by the local authority that the applicants were not destitute or
homeless. This specific decision was upheld by the House of Lords because whether the
applicants (married couple) had any kind of accommodation must be considered to be a question
of fact that must be determined by the authority.
The case named Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR
12314 must be considered to be a pertinent case in connection to the provided scenario. In this
specific case, it had been stated that any particular authority may be performing actions in an
unreasonable manner, when such authority refuses to consider applications or give effect to
specific decisions, without having regard for the individual circumstances in relation to a specific
policy.
The case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]
1 KB 2235 shall be regarded as a significant case in connection to the given situation. In this
case, it had been mentioned that any decision shall be considered to be irrational or absurd if it
defies logic or acknowledged moral values in such an outrageous manner that no practical or
reasonable individual (who may have applied the mind in relation to such question) would have
given effect to such decision. This specific standard or principle is also called the ‘Wednesbury
unreasonableness’ as it was first propounded in the aforementioned case.
4 Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 WLR 1231.
5 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW3
Application
In the provided situation, the Lenny is a student who made an application for the purpose
of a grant in relation to the cost and expenses regarding a computer. However, the Vice
Chancellor refused to allow such grant because according to him, firstly, the University has no
policy for entertaining applications concerning loans involving only grants, and secondly,
funding must not be provided regarding computers as they may be utilized for non-academic
gaming.
In this regard, the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil
Service [1985] AC 3746 must be applied. In this specific case, certain grounds were summarized
by the court in order to reverse an administrative decision with the help of a judicial review.
These grounds were ‘legitimate expectation’, ‘procedural impropriety’, ‘irrationality’, and
‘illegality’. Hence, in the given circumstance, the Students’ Union and Lenny shall be able to file
for a judicial review in order to review the administrative decision of the Vice Chancellor, on the
grounds such as ‘irrationality’ or ‘illegality’.
The case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984]
AC 747 shall be applied in connection to the provided scenario. It may be stated that any court
may quash or suppress the forwarded decision of the Vice Chancellor if he has misconstrued or
misinterpreted any legal term or assessed any fact in an incorrect manner, which might be crucial
for making the decision.
Applying the case of R v Hillingdon Borough Council, ex parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 4848
in the provided scenario, it may be said that if any term, which must be assessed by the Vice
6 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.
7 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74.
8 R v Hillingdon Borough Council, ex parte Pulhofer [1986] AC 484.