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
- Whether the University Visitor, whose authority derived from a university charter rather than statute, could be subject to judicial review.
- Whether the body’s function, rather than its legal status or source of authority, determines reviewability.
- Whether the Visitor’s duty to resolve staff disputes constitutes a public function triggering court oversight.
- 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.