Introduction
Judicial review serves as a key tool in administrative law, ensuring public bodies stay within legal limits. The case of R v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 defined when courts may check decisions by non-statutory bodies. This House of Lords ruling confirmed that certain non-statutory groups performing public duties could face court review if they commit legal errors. The key factor is the body’s purpose, not its official legal status. Criteria for review include a public aspect in the body’s work and clear mistakes in legal interpretation. This decision gives clear directions for applying court supervision to non-statutory groups.
The Scope of Judicial Review Before Page
Before Page, courts found it difficult to determine when to review non-statutory bodies. Earlier cases restricted judicial review to groups formed by law or exercising legal powers. This strict view left many organizations influencing public affairs unchecked. Disputes involving universities, trade groups, and similar entities highlighted gaps in oversight. Without uniform rules, courts inconsistently applied review principles.
The Facts and Outcome in Page
Dr. Page, a university lecturer, was dismissed by Hull University. He appealed to the University Visitor, who upheld the decision. Dr. Page then requested judicial review, arguing the Visitor misapplied the law. The House of Lords held that the Visitor, though appointed under the university’s charter (a non-legal document), could be reviewed. Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated the power’s source was less relevant than its use. The Visitor’s duty to resolve staff disputes was considered public enough to warrant court scrutiny.
The "Public Function" Test
The Page ruling created a "public function" test to determine if non-statutory bodies are reviewable. This test examines whether the body’s work could be done by a state institution or has broad public effects. Courts consider how decisions influence individual rights, public funds, and government responsibility. This approach adapts to shifts in public management and allows review of bodies with major public roles, irrespective of their legal structure.
Impact on Universities and Similar Bodies
Page altered how universities and related organizations function. It showed that their internal rulings, particularly those affecting rights, must comply with legal rules. This oversight helps maintain fairness in these institutions. University disciplinary processes, admission choices, and management became reviewable for legal errors. The decision also affected how courts treat rulings by professional associations, sports bodies, and other groups with public-like duties.
Ongoing Relevance of Page
R v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page remains a key case in administrative law. It provides adaptable principles to address changes in public governance. The "public function" test allows courts to evaluate non-statutory groups shaping public matters. By focusing on a body’s work rather than its legal basis, court supervision can tackle new issues and protect rights across organizations. Later cases like Datafin and Aga Khan have expanded this test, maintaining its role in holding powerful groups accountable.
Conclusion
The Page case broadened judicial review to include non-statutory bodies performing public duties. Prioritizing a body’s function over its legal origin marked a notable change in administrative law. This ruling holds universities, professional associations, and similar groups answerable for their actions. The "public function" test from Page supplies a clear way to decide when review applies, helping uphold legal standards across organizations. The principles from Page continue to shape how courts oversee public authority and protect individual rights.
