Administrative Inconsistency in the Courts

Judicial Review (Forthcoming)

5 Pages Posted: 17 Oct 2018

See all articles by Stephen Daly

Stephen Daly

King's College London – The Dickson Poon School of Law

Joe Tomlinson

University of York; Public Law Project

Date Written: September 25, 2018

Abstract

The recent Supreme Court case of R (Gallaher Group Ltd) v. Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25, [2018] 2 WLR 1583 considered the principle of equal treatment and its application to the conduct of the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) in a dispute over price-fixing in the tobacco market. In this note, we consider two points in the judgment that we suggest are cause for wider reflection by administrative lawyers. First, the nature of the exercise of “tidying up” the grounds of judicial review undertaken by Lord Carnwath and, second, Lord Sumption’s discussion of “wider duties” attaching to public authorities “charged with enforcing the law.”

Suggested Citation

Daly, Stephen and Tomlinson, Joe, Administrative Inconsistency in the Courts (September 25, 2018). Judicial Review (Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3255059

Stephen Daly

King's College London – The Dickson Poon School of Law ( email )

Somerset House East Wing
Strand
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

Joe Tomlinson (Contact Author)

University of York ( email )

England
United Kingdom

Public Law Project ( email )

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
28
Abstract Views
195
PlumX Metrics