What is public law?
- Public law comprises constitutional law, administrative law, tax law and criminal law. In public law, mandatory rules prevail.
Mar 19, 2021 · The purpose of enacting the law is to limit people's behavior and also create justice in society. In Indonesia itself, there are various types of laws that the public needs to know. One of them is public law. Well, in this article, we will explain everything about public law, starting from its definition, types, to examples of cases.
Examples of Public Law As previously mentioned, there are 4 common types of public law. Each one has its own individual rules and processes so it’s important to know the main differences between each of when you contact a public law solicitor for assistance in your case or claim. Constitutional Law
People also ask
What is public law?
What was the most famous public law case of 2015?
What do you need to understand public law?
What is a public law solicitor?
- The Standard of Review
- Statutory Interpretation
- Public Sector Equality Duty
1. R (Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Others) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills  UKSC 6
Rotherhamwas the first of four cases in 2015 in which the Supreme Court considered the standard of review that should be applied to public authority decision-making. The case concerned the allocation within the UK of EU Structural Funds. These funds, distributed in seven-year cycles, support the most deprived regions of the EU. Because of the accession of several new member states, the total funds available to the UK for 2014-2020 fell in comparison with the previous period. The government th...
2. Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 19
The immediate issue in Phamwas whether the government could make an order depriving Mr Pham of citizenship and rendering him stateless. The Supreme Court declined to express a view on whether deprivation of his UK citizenship also deprived him of EU citizenship and, if so, whether this brought the case within the ambit of EU law, meaning that the relevant standard for review was proportionality rather than Wednesbury reasonableness. However, the court referred to its comments in Kennedy regar...
3. R (Lumsdon and Others) v Legal Services Board  UKSC 41
The Supreme Court revisited the issue of proportionality in Lumsdon- a challenge brought by four criminal barristers to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates ('QASA'). The question before the court was whether the decision to introduce the QASAwas contrary to Regulation 14 of the Provisions of Services Regulations 2009, which implemented the Provision of Services Directive (2006/123/EC). Regulation 14 contains an express proportionality condition under which 'the need for an authorisatio...
6. Mandalia v Secretary of State of the Home Department  UKSC 59
Mandaliais concerned with whether a public authority is required to follow its own policies, including those which are produced purely for internal purposes. The case related to a policy document that instructed UK Border Agency caseworkers to show some flexibility in relation to visa applications which had not been accompanied by the requisite evidence. In such instances, the caseworkers were required to invite applicants to remedy any deficiencies in the evidence submitted with their applic...
7. R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills  UKSC 57
Is it acceptable for a public authority to adopt a 'blanket' (sometimes called 'bright line') policy which determines eligibility for a benefit without the possibility of exercising discretion in an individual case? This question lay at the heart of the Supreme Court's judgment in Tigere. Ms Tigere wanted to obtain a student loan in order to go to university. She had lived in the UK since the age of six and was educated here. However, the eligibility rules for student loans effectively denied...
The joined cases of Gallaher and Somerfieldconcerned whether it is unfair if the benefit of a promise mistakenly made to one person is not extended to others in a similar position. The cases resulted from actions taken by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (now the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)) following its investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices by several tobacco manufacturers and retailers. The OFTentered into 'early resolution agreements' with some companies (inclu...
9. R (Roche Registration Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health  EWCA Civ 1311
In Roche, the Court of Appeal held that the size and relative sophistication of a business is relevant to what a public authority is required to do in order to ensure that the business is treated fairly. The claim alleged that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) had acted unfairly when undertaking an investigation into Roche, a major pharmaceutical company. It was not in dispute that the MHRAhad disclosed information it obtained during that investigation to the...
Traveller Movementhighlights differences in how the duty of fairness will apply between enforcement proceedings and other types of adjudication. The claimant was a charity which complained to Ofcom about the portrayal of Traveller, Gypsy and Romany communities in two Channel 4 programmes (one being 'Big Fat Gypsy Weddings'). Part of the complaint was classified by Ofcom as a standards complaint and, in accordance with its normal procedure, it gave Channel 4 (but not the claimant) an opportuni...
11. R (on the application of Sumpter) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  EWCA Civ 1033
Towards the end of 2014, the decision of the Supreme Court in Moseley appeared to have reversed a long line of Court of Appeal authority allowing public bodies to consult on a single preferred option. Following Moseley,it was thought that public bodies might be required to consult on a range of options in every case, including ones they had already discarded. Sumpter was the last of several cases heard during 2015 in which the lower courts sought to row back from this position, largely by dou...
12. Nzolameso v Westminster  UKSC 22
There is no general public law duty to give reasons for decisions, but where they are given they must be adequate. Nzolamesois a judgment of the Supreme Court which adds to an understanding of what adequacy requires and suggests a general strengthening of the duty. Ms Nzolameso and her children had been living in expensive accommodation in Westminster funded by housing benefit. Changes to the benefit system meant that this was no longer affordable, triggering the duty of the local authority u...
13. HCA International Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority  EWCA Civ 492
In HCA, the Court of Appeal considered the principles to be applied in determining whether a public authority must appoint new decision-makers where one of its decisions has been quashed by a court and remitted back to it to be retaken. The background was that HCA had challenged the findings of the CMA after its investigation into private healthcare. The CMAconceded that the decisions should be quashed, but HCA challenged the ruling that they could be remitted back to the original decision-ma...
14. R (Trail Riders Fellowship) v Dorset CC  UKSC 18
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 provided that unrecorded vehicular rights of way would be extinguished unless applications to register them were made by a specified date. Applications were required to include a map showing the right of way 'drawn to the prescribed scale' and regulations prescribed that the map 'shall be on a scale of not less than 1:25,000'. The applications in this case included maps produced using a computer program to a scale of at least 1:25,000, bu...
15. Hotak & others v Southwark LBC & another  UKSC 30
Hotakis notable for being the first consideration by the Supreme Court of the public sector equality duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. One of the claimants argued that, in making decisions under the Housing Act 1996 in relation to his priority need for housing, Southwark had failed to comply with the PSED because it gave insufficient critical scrutiny to his disability. Lord Neuberger's leading judgment endorsed current Court of Appeal and High Court authority in...
16. R (Evans) v Attorney General  UKSC 21
Evans, the most publicised public law case of 2015, concerned the Guardiannewspaper's attempts to secure release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations of correspondence between Prince Charles and various government departments. That attempt was partially successful before the Upper Tribunal. However, the Attorney General used section 53 of FOIAto issue a certificate preventing disclosure on the basis that he considered 'on reasonable grounds...
17. R (on the application of APVCO 19 Limited and others) v HM Treasury and HMRC  EWCA Civ 648
In APVCO, the appellants challenged the legality of retrospective tax legislation. They had sought to take advantage of a tax avoidance scheme designed to avoid the payment of Stamp Duty Land Tax. The government had then introduced retrospective legislation that rendered the scheme ineffective. It was argued that this breached their rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 - A1P1) and a fair hearing (Article 6) under the European Convention on Human Rights. The app...
Shows a modern definition to what we refer to as the separation of powers: 1. The legislative function should be under the control of one group. 2. The judicial function should be the responsibility of one group 3. The executive function should be the responsibility of one group. Allan
Defining when human life begins is not a question science can answer – it's a question of politics and ethical values
Science can observe these various phases of fetal development but cannot determine when human life begins. UrsaHoogle/E+ via Getty ImagesNow that the U.S. Supreme Court has given states final ...
The Conversation via Yahoo
20 hours ago
Held- express legal authority is necessary for an interference with the person or property of the citizen - warrant illegal and therefore void. Malone v Metropolitan Police Malone's phone was tapped; a warrant issued by the home secretary. Malone argued that tapping was unlawful.