Public Law Case Research Coursework Term Paper Essay

THIS IS A PROBLEM QUESTION (OSCOLA REFERENCING)
ANSWER ONLY ONE QUESTION. EITHER QUESTION B1 OR B2
QUESTION B1
In accordance with the government’s anti-obesity strategy, Parliament has passed the Healthier Eating Act 2020 (fictitious) (‘the Act’) to encourage the healthy eating of food. Under the Act, any business wanting to open a new shop selling hot food items for consumption off the premises must first obtain a licence from the relevant local authority.
Section 2 of the Act provides that licences will only be granted where the proposed new take-away food shop is situated at least 500 metres from any existing take-away food shop.
Section 9 of the Act states that any decision of a local authority may be challenged in legal proceedings brought within 6 weeks of the decision but not thereafter.
(i) Lucy applied to Princeland Council (‘PC’) for a licence to open ‘Italian Delight’, a new pizza and pasta shop. Last week Lucy received a letter from PC’s Environmental Health Committee stating:
“Your application has been rejected on the basis that there is already a number of take-away food shops in the vicinity of the proposed ‘Pizza Delight’ and the Council’s wish to create an ‘arts and crafts’ hub in the area which would not be promoted by the presence of ‘Pizza Delight’.” Lucy cannot understand this decision as there are very few take-away food shops in the area.
(ii) John was recently granted a licence by PC although his new take-away fried chicken shop was within 500 metres of a similar shop. Healthy Hearts (‘HH’), a charity committed to promoting healthy eating in order to reduce heart disease, has discovered that the chair of PC’s Environmental Health Committee is John’s sister.
(iii) Asha applied to Brooklow City Council (‘BCC’) for a licence to open a new fish-and-chip shop on Upper River Street. She has just had her application for a licence refused on the basis that the shop she proposed was less than 500 metres from similar shops. Asha states that there are no other fast food shops in the area and certainly none within 500 metres. She thinks that BCC have confused the address, as there are a number of fast food shops on Lower River Road, which is on the other side of town.
Advise Lucy, HH and Asha whether each may make a claim for judicial review concerning the decisions which affect them, and, if so, their likely grounds of challenge.
QUESTION B2
Following concerns about safety in theme parks, Parliament passed the Theme Park (Safety) Act 2019 (fictitious) (‘the Act’). The Act established the Theme Park Safety Council (‘the Council’) to regulate theme parks, and provided that the Council must have particular regard to the safety of visitors to theme parks. The Act gives the Council the power to close, temporarily or permanently, individual rides and, where there is evidence of serious threats to safety, the whole venue.
The Act provides a procedure for any form of closure. The Council must first serve on the venue, by Royal Mail special delivery, a notice of its intention to make a closure (a ‘closure notice’). If the venue objects within 21 days, the Council must arrange a full hearing chaired by an independent inspector. At the end of the hearing the inspector must submit a report and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council must then decide whether to confirm or revoke the closure notice. If the Council confirms the closure notice, the theme park must close within 30 days.
After an accident at Thrill Manor, a theme park near Manchester, the Council sent a closure notice by ordinary mail. Thrill Manor objected a week later and a full hearing was held. At the hearing the Council argued that there were serious threats to public safety relating to two of Thrill Manor’s rides, the Grinner and the Haunted House.
Thrill Manor accepted that four teenagers had been injured in the accident on The Grinner, a rollercoaster at the theme park. However, Thrill Manor gave evidence that the teenagers were injured due to their own misbehaviour and submitted an independent expert’s report confirming that The Grinner met all safety specifications for rollercoasters. The Council gave no evidence relating to the Haunted House.
In her report after the hearing the inspector stated that following a site visit, which Thrill Manor was not aware that she had made, she had formed the view that the area of the theme park in which the Haunted House was situated was unsafe as it was susceptible to serious flooding. She recommended that the closure notice be confirmed due to safety issues with the Grinner and the Haunted House.
Shortly after receiving the report the Council decided to confirm the closure notice, referring to its published policy always to order the closure of any theme park where there were safety issues relating to two or more rides. Thrill Manor is upset by what it believes is an unjustified interference with the use of its property and has already incurred significant losses due to bad publicity about the closure notice.
Advise Thrill Manor:
(a) whether it may make a claim for judicial review of the decision to confirm the closure notice, and, if so, its likely grounds of challenge; and
(b) what remedies it should seek