THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA2008 ZA

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Administrative law

Tuesday 8 May 2018: 14.30 – 17.45

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates must answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
None.

© University of London 2018

UL18/0361
Page 1 of 3
1. Identify and discuss the main features of the law on procedural fairness
in administrative decision-making.

2. Discuss the development of the principle of substantive legitimate

expectation considering the weaknesses and uncertainties that remain
in the current law.

3. ‘We do not need special public law remedies and procedures, which
have brought confusion to our system of judicial review.’ (Dawn Oliver).

Discuss.

4. ‘The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (Parliamentary

Ombudsman) is an effective method of redress for aggrieved citizens.’

Discuss.

5. ‘Where public bodies are found liable for the torts of negligence,
misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and breaches of
the Human Rights Act 1988, the individual whose rights have been
violated never receives adequate financial compensation.’

Discuss.

6. Discuss whether the proportionality test has now replaced the

substantive Wednesbury test.

7. In what ways does administrative law in England and Wales seek to

control administrative discretion?

UL18/0361
Page 2 of 3
8. In order to address problems of environmental damage caused by
plastics, Parliament enacted the (fictitious) Plastic Regulation Act 2018,
which is now in force. The Act gives broad powers to a newly created
Plastics Regulation Agency (PRA) to draw up the rules setting out which
plastics it considers to be harmful “after consultation with interested
parties” and to ban plastic products that infringe the rules on the
regulation of plastic that it creates.

(a) ReplaceaPlas Ltd is a company that has developed a

product that is similar to plastic but made from organic
materials. The PRA has banned this product as a harmful
plastic even though ReplaceaPlas has adduced expert
evidence from several leading experts that its product is
not a plastic.

(b) The Plastic Manufacturers Association is aggrieved that it

was not consulted when the PRA drew up the rules on
plastics that are considered to be harmful to the
environment.

(c) John invented a very strong and thin plastic product. In

advance of offering this product to the market he sought
the guidance of the PRA and was assured by a member of
its staff that the product would meet the requirements of
the PRA for environmental sustainability and would not be
banned. Once John brought his product to market, the
PRA banned it on the basis of recent research
demonstrating that one of the chemicals in John’s product
is particularly harmful to the environment.

(d) The PRA’s published policy bans any product containing

plastic ‘micro beads’ as these are particularly harmful to
the environment. Smellnice, a cosmetics firm, asked the
PRA if its product containing ‘micro beads’ could be sold
since it uses an innovative system preventing the micro
beads’ escape from the container into the environment.
The PRA refuses to consider the request and adheres to
its published policy.

Advise ReplaceaPlas Ltd, The Plastic Manufacturers Association, John

and Smellnice whether the PRA has acted unlawfully in their respective
cases. In the case of the Plastic Manufacturers Association, could there
be any barriers to the bringing of a claim for judicial review?

END OF PAPER

UL18/0361
Page 3 of 3