The Scope of the Prerogative Orders in Administrative Law

Under Article 8, courts may use prerogative orders such as mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and
habeas corpus to uphold these principles and ensure that public authorities act within the scope of their
powers and in compliance with legal requirements. These orders can be used to challenge
administrative decisions that are arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of procedural fairness.

Prerogative orders are a set of remedies in administrative law that allow courts to control the exercise of
public power. These orders include:

Mandamus: Compels a public authority to perform a duty it is legally required to do.

Certiorari: Quashes a decision made by a public authority that is considered unlawful.

Prohibition: Prevents a public authority from acting outside its jurisdiction or in excess of its powers.

Quo Warranto: Challenges the authority of a person or organization to hold public office.

Habeas Corpus: Requires a person who is detained to be brought before a court to determine the
lawfulness of their detention.

These orders are used to ensure that public authorities act within their legal limits and to protect
individuals from arbitrary or unlawful actions by the state. They are an important tool in administrative
law for upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in government

Overall, Article 8 and the prerogative orders play a crucial role in ensuring that administrative decisions
are made fairly and lawfully, and that individuals' rights are protected in the administrative law context.

BODIES SUBJECT TO PROHIBITION

Under Article 8 of administrative law, the prerogative order of prohibition can be used to prevent public
authorities from acting outside their jurisdiction or in excess of their powers. This means that any public
body or official that is acting beyond what is allowed by law can be subject to a prohibition order.

For example, if a local council tries to make a decision on a matter that is outside its legal authority, such
as passing a bylaw that is not within its jurisdiction, a prohibition order can be sought to prevent them
from taking that action.

Similarly, if a government department exceeds its powers in making a decision, such as by unlawfully
interfering with someone's property rights, a prohibition order can be sought to stop them from
continuing with that action.

Overall, the scope of bodies subject to prohibition under Article 8 of administrative law is broad and
includes any public authority or official that is acting unlawfully or beyond their legal powers.
BODIES EXEMPT FROM PROHIBITION.

Article 8 of administrative law does not specify any particular bodies that are exempt from the
prerogative order of prohibition. However, it is generally understood that certain bodies or actions may
be considered immune from judicial review or may be subject to different procedures.

For example, decisions of high-level government officials, such as the Prime Minister or Cabinet
members, in matters of national security or foreign affairs, may be considered non-justiciable and thus
exempt from prohibition.

Similarly, actions taken under emergency powers or wartime measures may be exempt from judicial
review, as courts are often reluctant to interfere with such decisions made in times of crisis.

Additionally, certain bodies or actions may be subject to different procedural requirements or

Overall, while Article 8 does not explicitly exempt any bodies from prohibition, there may be practical or
legal considerations that limit the applicability of this prerogative order in certain circumstances.

JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND MINISTERS

Judicial Bodies: These are traditional courts with judges who are appointed to adjudicate legal disputes.
They follow formal legal procedures, hear evidence, and make decisions based on the law. Examples
include the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies: These are administrative bodies that are given the authority to make decisions
that affect the rights of individuals or organizations. They are not part of the traditional court system but
are required to act fairly and impartially, often following procedures similar to those of courts. Examples
include tribunals like the Employment Tribunal, Immigration Appeal Tribunal, and Planning Appeal
Tribunal.

Administrative Bodies: These are government departments or agencies responsible for implementing
government policies and delivering services. They make administrative decisions that do not typically
involve adjudicating legal disputes. Examples include the Department of Health, Department for
Education, and local councils.

Ministers, on the other hand, are government officials who head government departments or ministries
and are responsible for making decisions within their areas of responsibility. While ministers are not
typically considered judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, their decisions can be subject to judicial review if
they are made unlawfully or exceed their lawful powers.
In summary, judicial bodies are traditional courts, quasi-judicial bodies are administrative bodies with
adjudicative functions, and ministers are government officials responsible for making decisions within
their areas of responsibility.

R. v. Electricity Commissioners

R. v. Electricity Commissioners is a landmark case in administrative law that established the principle of
ultra vires, meaning "beyond the powers." In this case, the Electricity Commissioners were a statutory
body empowered to fix maximum prices for electricity. The Commissioners set a price that was
challenged by a power company, arguing that the Commissioners had acted ultra vires.

The House of Lords held that the Commissioners had acted ultra vires because the statute only
empowered them to fix maximum prices for electricity generated by the companies themselves, not for
electricity purchased from other sources. This case established the principle that administrative bodies
can only exercise powers that are expressly granted to them by statute or necessary implications, and
any actions beyond those powers are void.

R. v. Electricity Commissioners is significant because it clarified the limits of administrative authority and
reinforced the principle that administrative bodies must act within the scope of their statutory powers.
It also established the foundation for the modern understanding of ultra vires in administrative law.

The Davis and Yaffe cases

The Davis and Yaffe cases are two separate cases in administrative law that deal with the principle of
legitimate expectation. Here is a summary explanation of each case:

Davis v. Johnson: This case involved a prisoner who was denied parole despite being told by prison
authorities that he would be eligible for parole after serving a certain period of time. The House of Lords
held that the prisoner had a legitimate expectation of parole based on the representations made to him,
and the decision to deny him parole was therefore unlawful.

Yaffe v. Secretary of State for the Home Department: In this case, a group of asylum seekers who had
been promised an expedited review of their cases by the Home Secretary were denied this review. The
House of Lords held that the asylum seekers had a legitimate expectation based on the promise made to
them, and that the failure to provide the expedited review was unlawful.

In both cases, the principle of legitimate expectation was applied to protect individuals' rights and
ensure that public authorities act fairly and in accordance with their promises. These cases demonstrate
the importance of the legitimate expectation doctrine in administrative law, which requires public
authorities to fulfill promises or commitments made to individuals when they have relied on those
promises to their detriment.