## Facts

- Dr. Page, a lecturer at Hull University, was dismissed from his position.
- He appealed the dismissal to the University Visitor, a review authority appointed under the university's charter.
- The University Visitor upheld the dismissal decision.
- Dr. Page sought judicial review, alleging the Visitor misapplied the law.
- The House of Lords addressed whether decisions of the Visitor, an authority not created by statute, could be subject to judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the University Visitor, whose authority derived from a university charter rather than statute, could be subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the body’s function, rather than its legal status or source of authority, determines reviewability.
3. Whether the Visitor’s duty to resolve staff disputes constitutes a public function triggering court oversight.
4. Whether internal decisions of universities and similar non-statutory bodies affecting individual rights require judicial scrutiny.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the Visitor, even though appointed under a non-statutory charter, could be subject to judicial review.
- The court reasoned that the source of a body's power is less important than its function and the nature of the duties performed.
- A body exercising functions of sufficient public character or affecting public or individual rights may be reviewable by courts for legal errors.
- The Visitor’s resolution of staff disputes was deemed a public function warranting judicial oversight.
- The decision clarified that internal rulings of universities and certain other organizations must comply with legal standards if performing public functions.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review is available not only to statutory authorities but also to non-statutory bodies performing public functions.
- The "public function" test assesses whether a body's actions are akin to state duties, affect individual rights, public funds, or government responsibilities.
- The key criterion for reviewability is the nature and impact of the body's work, rather than its formal legal status or origin of power.
- Broadening of judicial review ensures fairness, legal compliance, and accountability of non-statutory bodies with significant public influence.
- The principles from this case accommodate changing structures of public administration, enabling courts to review bodies with evolving or hybrid roles.

## Conclusion

The decision in R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page broadened the scope of judicial review to include non-statutory bodies undertaking public functions, focusing on the substance of a body's activity rather than the formal source of its authority, and established the "public function" test as the standard for determining when judicial oversight applies.

R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page [1993] AC 682 (HL)