R v Hull Univ. Visitor, [1993] AC 682

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

The National Training Council for Public Administrators oversees mandatory certification for individuals aiming to work in government agencies. Although privately registered, its decisions directly influence career eligibility and public resources. The Council’s charter does not derive from legislation, but it wields substantial influence over public-sector access. Recently, a candidate challenged the Council’s refusal to grant certification, claiming significant legal errors in the Council’s internal policies. She argues that, despite the Council’s private status, the courts should review its decisions for legal errors.


Which of the following is the single best analysis regarding the Council’s susceptibility to judicial review under the principle from R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682?

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal