50 Public Law Cases You Should Know

Entick v Carrington (1765)
King’s messengers, acting under a general warrant issued by a Secretary of State, broke into Entick’s home and seized papers. The court held the search unlawful, declaring that state officials can only act with lawful authority. This court established the rule of law as a constitutional cornerstone, ruling that no one, not even the government, is above the law. It protected individual liberty and property rights from arbitrary executive interference, ensuring that governmental power must have a clear legal basis either in statute or common law.

Case of Proclamations (1611)
King James I attempted to legislate by royal proclamation, including restrictions on new buildings in London. Chief Justice Coke ruled that the King had no power to change or create law without Parliament’s consent. The judgment cemented the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, establishing that the Crown cannot unilaterally alter legal rights or obligations. It also defined constitutional boundaries between the monarch and Parliament, confirming that prerogative powers are constrained by law and must not encroach upon the legislative authority of Parliament.

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
The government argued it could trigger Article 50 TEU using prerogative powers to begin the process of leaving the EU. The Supreme Court held that this would change domestic law and remove rights conferred by Parliament, requiring legislative approval. The case reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty, limiting the executive’s ability to alter domestic rights without Parliament’s consent. It also underscored the rule of law and constitutional accountability, confirming that major constitutional changes require Parliament’s explicit authorisation rather than executive discretion.

R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (2019)
The Prime Minister advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit process. The Supreme Court ruled this unlawful, as it frustrated Parliament’s ability to perform its constitutional role without reasonable justification. The decision reinforced that even prerogative powers are subject to judicial limits when exercised contrary to fundamental constitutional principles such as parliamentary accountability and the rule of law. It demonstrated the court’s willingness to uphold constitutional balance by reviewing executive action that undermines democratic governance.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
The government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions using prerogative powers without prior consultation. The House of Lords held that prerogative powers are subject to judicial review where the subject matter is justiciable, though national security concerns justified non-interference in this case. The judgment established the three classic grounds of judicial review, namely illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, and marked a major development in administrative law by confirming that all public powers, statutory or prerogative, must conform to legal principles.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
The Home Secretary sought to introduce a new criminal injuries compensation scheme using prerogative powers, despite Parliament having legislated for a statutory scheme not yet in force. The House of Lords held this unlawful, as it frustrated the will of Parliament and violated the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The judgment confirmed that executive powers, even when derived from the prerogative, cannot lawfully override or replace statutory provisions, reinforcing the constitutional limits of the executive within the separation of powers framework.

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh Detainees Case) (2004)
Following the 9/11 attacks, foreign nationals suspected of terrorism were detained indefinitely without trial under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The House of Lords held the measure disproportionate and discriminatory, breaching Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR. The ruling emphasised the importance of the rule of law and human rights, holding that national security cannot justify arbitrary detention. It demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness under the Human Rights Act 1998 to hold the executive accountable for rights violations.

R (Evans) v Attorney General (2015)
The Attorney General vetoed a judicial order requiring disclosure of Prince Charles’s correspondence with ministers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Supreme Court held the veto unlawful, as it undermined judicial decisions and lacked rational justification. The ruling reinforced separation of powers and judicial independence, confirming that ministers cannot override the courts’ determinations without clear statutory authority. It underlined that executive power must operate within lawful boundaries and respect constitutional principles of transparency and accountability.

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Anisminic challenged a decision of the Commission, but an “ouster clause” purported to exclude judicial review. The House of Lords held that an error of law renders a decision void, meaning it is not a “decision” within the meaning of such a clause. This judgment transformed judicial review, ensuring that even where Parliament attempts to exclude review, the courts retain the authority to determine legality. It reinforced the rule of law and curtailed the executive’s ability to act beyond its powers.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
A cinema was granted a licence to open on Sundays on the condition that no children under 15 were admitted. The court held that administrative decisions can only be challenged for Wednesbury unreasonableness when they are so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made them. This case established irrationality as a ground for judicial review and remains a key standard for assessing the reasonableness of public decisions, balancing judicial restraint with the need to prevent arbitrary or capricious administrative action.

R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2001)
Ms Coughlan, a severely disabled patient, was promised a permanent home by a health authority, which later sought to close it. The Court of Appeal held the closure unlawful, recognising a substantive legitimate expectation based on a clear, unambiguous promise. This case established that public authorities are bound by such promises unless there is an overriding public interest justifying departure. It remains a leading authority on legitimate expectation and fairness in administrative decision-making.

R (Begbie) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment (2000)
A student sought to enforce a political promise regarding school funding. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, distinguishing between promises made to individuals and general political statements. It held that only clear, specific assurances made by public bodies can generate legitimate expectations, not broad political commitments. The case draws a boundary between political accountability and legal enforceability, showing that not all public expectations are justiciable under administrative law.

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston (1985)
A taxpayer alleged that the Inland Revenue had unfairly withdrawn a settlement agreement. The House of Lords held that while judicial review is not a substitute for appeal, it may apply where a public authority acts unfairly or abuses its powers. This case emphasised that procedural fairness and legitimate expectations apply to the exercise of discretionary powers, reinforcing that administrative decisions must be made in good faith and for proper purposes.

R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) (2008)
The government had removed the Chagos Islanders from their homeland using prerogative powers. The House of Lords, by majority, upheld the legality of the action, deferring to the executive on national security grounds. The case illustrates the limits of judicial intervention in matters involving foreign affairs and defence, highlighting judicial restraint where the separation of powers and the political nature of the decision make review inappropriate.

R (Venables) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1998)
The Home Secretary set the minimum terms for juvenile offenders convicted of murder. The House of Lords held this unlawful, as the Home Secretary acted beyond his powers by imposing a judicial function. The ruling reinforced the separation of powers, holding that sentencing is a matter for the judiciary, not the executive. It also affirmed that administrative decisions must be free from political influence and consistent with principles of fairness and impartiality.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001)
A prisoner challenged the blanket policy requiring searches of legally privileged correspondence. The House of Lords held the policy disproportionate, introducing the proportionality test into domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Lord Steyn clarified that proportionality involves a more intensive standard of review than Wednesbury unreasonableness, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights. The case strengthened human rights protection and clarified the interaction between domestic administrative law and the ECHR.

R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC (2003)
The BBC refused to broadcast a political party’s election broadcast showing graphic abortion images. The House of Lords upheld the decision, finding the restriction proportionate and lawful under the Human Rights Act 1998. The case illustrates the courts’ role in balancing freedom of expression against other public interests, recognising the importance of proportionality review while maintaining respect for the discretion of public authorities in sensitive regulatory matters.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson (1998)
The Home Secretary increased a prisoner’s tariff retrospectively. The House of Lords held this unlawful, reaffirming that public powers must be exercised consistently with the principle of legality such that statutes are presumed not to authorise arbitrary or retrospective decisions affecting individual rights. The decision reinforced the rule of law, ensuring that executive discretion remains subject to fundamental constitutional principles of fairness and non-retroactivity.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (2000)
Prisoners were prohibited from giving oral interviews to journalists. The House of Lords held the restriction unlawful, confirming that fundamental rights such as freedom of expression cannot be curtailed without clear statutory authority. Lord Hoffmann stated that Parliament must “squarely confront what it is doing” if it wishes to limit rights. The case established the principle of legality, ensuring that constitutional rights can only be overridden by express legislative wording.

R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (2011)
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal by the Upper Tribunal to grant permission to appeal. The Supreme Court held that judicial review was available, but only in limited circumstances where there is an important point of law or fundamental procedural error. The case refined the scope of judicial review, balancing access to justice with judicial efficiency, and clarified that even bodies with final appellate jurisdiction remain subject to the rule of law.

Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968)
Milk producers challenged the Minister’s refusal to refer their complaint to a committee of investigation. The House of Lords held the decision unlawful, as it frustrated the purpose of the statute. The case established that discretionary powers must be used to promote statutory objectives, not to thwart them. It remains a cornerstone of administrative law, ensuring that public authorities exercise discretion lawfully and in accordance with legislative intent.

R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2008)
The Serious Fraud Office discontinued an investigation into alleged corruption involving arms deals with Saudi Arabia due to national security concerns. The House of Lords upheld the decision, finding it lawful and proportionate. The case illustrates judicial deference to executive decisions involving national security, while affirming that such decisions remain reviewable to ensure they are taken in good faith and based on relevant considerations.

R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011)
Foreign prisoners were detained pending deportation under an unpublished policy. The Supreme Court held the detentions unlawful, as public authorities must follow published policies to ensure transparency and fairness. The case affirmed the rule of law principle that executive power must not be exercised arbitrarily, and individuals must be able to foresee how discretion will be applied. It strengthened the duty of openness and procedural fairness in administrative governance.

R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor (2017)
Employment tribunal fees were introduced by statutory instrument. The Supreme Court quashed the fees as unlawful, holding they impeded access to justice and violated the rule of law. The judgment affirmed that the right of access to the courts is fundamental and cannot be curtailed without clear legislative authority. It reinforced the constitutional role of the courts in upholding justice and holding the executive to account for actions that restrict legal redress.

Congreve v Home Office (1976)
Television licence holders renewed early to avoid an increase in fees. The Home Office threatened to revoke their licences unless they paid the new rate. The Court of Appeal held this unlawful, as the Home Secretary’s power to revoke licences was exercised for an improper purpose to raise revenue. The case established that discretionary powers must be used for proper purposes and cannot be exploited to achieve objectives outside their statutory intent.

R (Ridge) v Baldwin (1964)
A chief constable was dismissed without a hearing. The House of Lords held the dismissal unlawful for breach of natural justice, establishing that individuals affected by administrative decisions must be given an opportunity to be heard. This case revitalised the duty of procedural fairness in administrative law, confirming that even discretionary or executive powers must be exercised fairly and in accordance with due process.

Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)
A landowner’s house was demolished without prior notice for failing to obtain permission. The court held the demolition unlawful, as the board had failed to provide a hearing. This early case on procedural fairness established that even where not expressly required by statute, there is an implied duty to act fairly. It laid the foundation for the modern principle of natural justice and the right to be heard.

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)
A judge who had a financial interest in one of the parties sat on the case. The House of Lords held the decision void, as justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. This case established the rule against bias, forming a core element of procedural fairness in public law. It ensures that public decisions are made impartially, safeguarding public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and administrative process.

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 2) (1999)
Lord Hoffmann failed to disclose his connection to Amnesty International, which intervened in the case against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. The House of Lords set aside its earlier judgment due to apparent bias. The case reinforced that even perceived partiality can invalidate judicial decisions. It extended the rule against bias and affirmed that judges must be, and be seen to be, completely impartial to uphold the legitimacy of judicial authority.

R (Doody) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1994)
Prisoners serving life sentences challenged the Home Secretary’s refusal to disclose reasons for their continued detention. The House of Lords held that fairness requires giving reasons in certain circumstances. The case established that while there is no general duty to give reasons, one may arise where rights are significantly affected. It expanded the duty of procedural fairness, ensuring transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.

Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd (1920)
During World War I, the government requisitioned a hotel for military use without paying compensation, claiming prerogative power. The House of Lords held that where statutory authority exists, it displaces the prerogative. The Crown must act under statute and comply with its conditions. This case established a fundamental constitutional rule: statute law prevails over prerogative power. It ensures that Parliament controls the limits of executive authority and prevents the government from bypassing statutory obligations through the prerogative.

Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate (1965)
The government destroyed oil installations in Burma during World War II to prevent enemy use. The House of Lords held that compensation was payable because the destruction was lawful but caused loss to private property. Parliament subsequently passed the War Damage Act 1965 to retrospectively remove liability. The case highlighted tensions between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, demonstrating Parliament’s ability to enact retrospective legislation, even if it appears unjust.

M v Home Office (1994)
A Home Secretary disobeyed a court order to return a deported asylum seeker. The House of Lords held that government ministers are subject to the law and contempt of court like any individual. The decision affirmed that no one is above the law, not even the executive, reinforcing the rule of law and judicial authority over government actions. It remains a powerful example of constitutional accountability and the courts’ role in upholding lawful administration.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja (1984)
The Home Secretary detained individuals as illegal entrants. The House of Lords held that courts must determine the jurisdictional fact of illegality before detention can lawfully occur. This case strengthened judicial oversight over executive detention powers, ensuring that administrative discretion is subject to objective verification. It reinforced individual liberty and the rule of law, preventing abuse of immigration powers by requiring evidence-based, lawful decision-making.

R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005)
The validity of the Hunting Act 2004, passed under the Parliament Acts procedure, was challenged. The House of Lords upheld the Act, but several judges questioned the orthodox view of parliamentary sovereignty, suggesting that the courts might intervene if Parliament sought to abolish judicial review or fundamental rights. The case opened debate on constitutional limits to sovereignty, signalling a more modern, rights-based understanding of the UK’s unwritten constitution.

R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019)
An ouster clause attempted to exclude judicial review of tribunal decisions concerning surveillance. The Supreme Court held that judicial review cannot be excluded unless Parliament uses the clearest possible words. Even then, courts will interpret such clauses narrowly. The decision reinforced the rule of law and judicial supremacy, confirming that the courts remain the ultimate guardians of legality and that executive action is always open to judicial scrutiny.

AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate (2011)
Insurers challenged Scottish legislation retrospectively altering liability rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, affirming parliamentary sovereignty within the devolved context but recognising constitutional limits: the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate arbitrarily or in bad faith. The case confirmed that the rule of law forms an implied constitutional constraint on all legislative bodies, emphasising judicial willingness to ensure accountability within devolved governance frameworks.

R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister (2008)
The claimant argued that the government’s refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty breached a political promise. The High Court dismissed the claim, ruling that political promises are not legally enforceable unless given in a form creating legitimate expectations. This case reaffirmed the non-justiciability of political matters, maintaining a clear separation between political accountability through Parliament and legal accountability through the courts.

R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2008)
The Serious Fraud Office halted an investigation into alleged bribery in defence contracts with Saudi Arabia, citing national security. The House of Lords accepted this justification, recognising that public interest and national security can outweigh the rule of law in limited circumstances. The case exemplifies judicial deference to the executive in sensitive matters but confirmed that such decisions remain subject to scrutiny for legality, rationality, and proportionality.

R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (2014)
A paralysed man sought the legalisation of assisted dying. The Supreme Court held that the issue involved moral and social policy, making it more appropriate for Parliament to decide. However, several justices accepted that the courts could intervene in future if Parliament failed to act. The case illustrates judicial restraint and the evolving relationship between human rights and parliamentary sovereignty, recognising both separation of powers and the court’s role in protecting dignity and autonomy.

R (Carlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014)
A member of the House of Lords challenged the refusal of entry to an Iranian dissident on national security grounds. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, applying proportionality under Article 10 ECHR but granting a wide margin of appreciation to the executive. The case highlights judicial deference in security matters while confirming that rights-based claims are still justiciable. It reflects the tension between individual rights and executive discretion in national security contexts.

Osborn v Parole Board (2013)
Prisoners were denied oral hearings when challenging continued detention. The Supreme Court held this unfair, reaffirming that procedural fairness is a constitutional requirement independent of statute. The judgment grounded fairness in the common law rule of law, not merely in the Human Rights Act, confirming that administrative decision-making must respect natural justice. It strengthened the courts’ supervisory role in ensuring transparency, dignity, and fairness in public procedures.

R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015)
A Zambian student lawfully resident in the UK was denied a student loan due to immigration status. The Supreme Court held the refusal disproportionate, breaching Article 14 ECHR read with Article 2 Protocol 1. The case demonstrates how proportionality review under the Human Rights Act protects equality and access to education. It highlights the courts’ willingness to scrutinise government policies that unjustifiably restrict fundamental rights based on immigration status.

R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2006)
Protesters challenged police stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The House of Lords upheld the powers, but the European Court of Human Rights later found them disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR. The case underscored the importance of proportionality and human rights standards in policing powers. It influenced later legislative reform and reaffirmed that executive discretion in law enforcement must respect privacy and freedom of expression.

Roberts v Hopwood (1925)
A local authority paid workers above-market wages out of social sympathy. The House of Lords held this unreasonable, as public bodies must act in the interests of ratepayers and not based on personal morality. The decision illustrates early principles of administrative reasonableness, requiring public authorities to balance competing interests rationally and within statutory purposes. It remains a foundational case in defining lawful administrative discretion.

R (Gallaher Group Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority (2018)
Tobacco companies argued unequal treatment in a regulatory settlement process. The Supreme Court held that equality principles only apply where fairness demands consistent treatment in identical circumstances. This clarified that substantive unfairness in administrative law does not create a general right to equality but depends on rational and fair justification. The case refined the limits of legitimate expectation and equal treatment in public decision-making.

R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner (2007)
A family argued that a coroner failed to conduct an adequate investigation into a prison death. The House of Lords held that Article 2 ECHR imposes a procedural obligation on the state to investigate deaths involving state responsibility. The case established that the right to life includes investigative duties, reinforcing accountability of public authorities and extending judicial oversight into the protection of fundamental human rights.

R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002)
The Home Secretary personally set minimum terms for mandatory life prisoners. The House of Lords held this unlawful, as it breached Article 6 ECHR (the right to a fair). The decision reinforced the separation of powers, holding that sentencing must be a judicial function, not an executive one. It cemented judicial independence as a constitutional principle and limited the scope of ministerial discretion in criminal justice matters.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech (No 2) (1994)
A prisoner challenged prison rules allowing officials to read correspondence between inmates and their solicitors, arguing this interfered with access to legal advice. The Court of Appeal held the policy unlawful, confirming that the constitutional right of access to the courts is a fundamental common law right. Any restriction on such access requires clear statutory authority and must be strictly justified. The case reinforced the principle of legality and affirmed that executive powers cannot undermine effective legal representation or impede access to justice without explicit parliamentary authorisation.

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Unilever plc (1985)
The Inland Revenue had a long-standing practice of allowing late tax claims without strict enforcement of deadlines. Without warning, it refused Unilever’s late claim, causing financial loss. The Court of Appeal held that although the authority acted within its legal powers, the sudden departure from an established practice was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power. The case illustrates how consistent administrative practices can generate legitimate expectations and how public bodies must act fairly when changing policy.