Criticisms of tribunals
Criticisms of Tribunals
Tribunals are specialized judicial bodies designed to resolve disputes efficiently, especially in administrative and regulatory contexts. However, despite their advantages, tribunals face several criticisms:
Lack of Independence and Impartiality
Tribunals are often part of the executive branch or appointed by government ministers, raising concerns about their independence.
Procedural Inadequacy
Tribunals sometimes have less formal procedures than courts, which can lead to unfairness or inconsistency in decisions.
Limited Legal Expertise
Some tribunals may lack legally qualified members, which can affect the quality of legal reasoning and outcomes.
Limited Rights of Appeal
Decisions of tribunals may have restricted appeal mechanisms, leading to concerns about justice and fairness.
Delay and Inefficiency
Although intended to speed up dispute resolution, some tribunals suffer from delays and backlog.
Case Law Illustrating Criticisms of Tribunals
1. R v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore (1957)
Issue: Independence and impartiality of tribunal members
Facts: Gilmore challenged a decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal, claiming that it was biased because one member had a direct interest in the outcome.
Held: The court emphasized that tribunals must be impartial and independent. Any real possibility of bias can invalidate a tribunal's decision.
Significance: This case highlights the fundamental criticism that tribunals must maintain independence and avoid any appearance of bias. It reinforced the principle that tribunal members should be free from conflicts of interest.
2. R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc (1987)
Issue: Judicial review of tribunals and procedural fairness
Facts: The Panel on Take-overs and Mergers made a decision affecting Datafin plc. The question was whether the Panel's decisions, though not a formal court, were subject to judicial review.
Held: The court held that the Panel’s decisions were subject to judicial review because it exercised public law functions, even though it was a private body.
Significance: This case addresses procedural inadequacies and reinforces that tribunals exercising public power must adhere to principles of fairness and can be reviewed by courts. It shows tribunals cannot operate without accountability.
3. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994)
Issue: Right to reasons and procedural fairness in tribunals
Facts: Prisoners challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to set their tariffs without giving reasons.
Held: The House of Lords held that the prisoners were entitled to be given reasons for the decision, establishing the right to a fair hearing and transparency.
Significance: This case criticizes tribunals that fail to provide adequate reasons for decisions. Transparency and procedural fairness are essential to uphold justice in tribunal proceedings.
4. R v. General Medical Council, ex parte B (1996)
Issue: Legal expertise and the composition of tribunals
Facts: The General Medical Council tribunal made a decision affecting a doctor’s license. The question was whether legally unqualified members had affected the fairness of the process.
Held: The court held that tribunals should have sufficient legal expertise, especially where complex legal questions are involved, to ensure fair and proper decisions.
Significance: This case highlights concerns about limited legal expertise in tribunals and reinforces the need for legally qualified members in important cases.
5. R (on the application of Cart) v. Upper Tribunal (2011)
Issue: Rights of appeal from tribunals
Facts: The case concerned whether permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was required after a decision of the Upper Tribunal.
Held: The Supreme Court held that there must be a permission stage before appeal to the Court of Appeal, to balance efficiency with justice.
Significance: This case clarifies that while tribunals may limit appeals to reduce delays, there must still be a fair opportunity for appeal, addressing criticisms of limited appellate rights.
Summary
| Criticism | Case Law | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Independence | ex parte Gilmore (1957) | Tribunals must be impartial and free from bias |
| Procedural fairness | ex parte Datafin (1987) | Tribunals exercising public power are subject to judicial review |
| Transparency | ex parte Doody (1994) | Right to reasons and fair hearing |
| Legal expertise | ex parte B (1996) | Need for legally qualified tribunal members |
| Right to appeal | Cart (2011) | Permission required for appeal, balancing fairness and efficiency |
RELATED Blog
0 comments