- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd (1982) HL
Case Summary: This case concerns the nature of the prerogative writ of mandamus and the standing required to bring such a claim.
Facts: Newspaper casual workers evaded taxes by using false names. The Inland Revenue Commissioners (IRC) offered them a tax amnesty in exchange for future cooperation. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (NFSE) challenged this amnesty, arguing it was unlawful and sought a mandamus order compelling the IRC to collect all outstanding taxes.
Decision: The House of Lords dismissed the NFSE's claim, holding they lacked locus standi (the right to bring the action). However, Lord Scarman's comments on mandamus are crucial for understanding the writ's nature.
Lord Scarman's Key Points on Mandamus:
Case Summary: This case concerns the nature of the prerogative writ of mandamus and the standing required to bring such a claim.
Facts: Newspaper casual workers evaded taxes by using false names. The Inland Revenue Commissioners (IRC) offered them a tax amnesty in exchange for future cooperation. The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (NFSE) challenged this amnesty, arguing it was unlawful and sought a mandamus order compelling the IRC to collect all outstanding taxes.
Decision: The House of Lords dismissed the NFSE's claim, holding they lacked locus standi (the right to bring the action). However, Lord Scarman's comments on mandamus are crucial for understanding the writ's nature.
Lord Scarman's Key Points on Mandamus:
- Elusive Nature: Mandamus is a complex and evolving writ, with its application changing over time. This highlights the need for careful consideration of its scope and limitations.
- Judicial Remedy: Mandamus is a court order, not a legislative or administrative action.
- Public Legal Duty: Mandamus only compels the performance of a public legal duty, meaning a legally enforceable obligation owed to the public. A mere governmental policy or discretionary decision is generally not sufficient.
- Non-Applicability to the Crown: Mandamus cannot be used against the Crown itself (though this principle has been subject to some qualification in later jurisprudence).
- Sufficient Interest: To obtain mandamus, the applicant must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the matter. This means showing a direct and substantial impact on their rights or interests from the failure to perform the duty. This aspect relates directly to the NFSE's unsuccessful claim.
- Mandamus: A court order compelling a public authority to perform a public legal duty.
- Locus Standi (Standing): The right of a party to bring a legal action. This case highlights the importance of establishing sufficient standing to bring a claim involving mandamus.
- Public Legal Duty: A legally binding obligation owed to the public, not just a discretionary power.
- Prerogative Writs: Extraordinary remedies available to enforce public rights. Mandamus is one such writ.
- What are the key characteristics of the writ of mandamus as outlined by Lord Scarman?
- Why did the NFSE fail to obtain mandamus in this case? What does this tell us about the requirement of locus standi?
- Explain the difference between a public legal duty and a discretionary power. Why is this distinction important in relation to mandamus?
- How has the applicability of mandamus to the Crown evolved over time? (Further research may be required for this question).
- Find and analyse a more recent case concerning the use of mandamus. How does it relate to the principles established in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners?
0 Comments