Public Law Revision for LLB UK Students
Cases, exam pitfalls and OSCOLA-ready notes for the UK undergraduate public law syllabus.
Where Public Law sits in the LLB
Public Law (Constitutional & Administrative Law) is the LLB module that asks how power is constrained in a state without a single written constitution. You are expected to navigate parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, the separation of powers, devolution, and the grounds of judicial review (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and increasingly, proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998).
The reading list ranges from Dicey and Bingham through Entick v Carrington, the GCHQ case, Anisminic, Wednesbury, ex p Pierson and the modern devolution and Brexit decisions (Miller I and II). The Human Rights Act 1998 is itself a major source of examinable material, s 3 and s 4, the s 6 public-authority duty, and the convention jurisprudence.
This page gives you the canonical authorities. Use the assistant to drill JR problem questions, they reward students who can identify the ground, the standing rules, and the remedies in the correct order.
Key cases you must be able to apply
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
Foundational rule-of-law decision, the executive needs lawful authority to act.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
GCHQ: three classical grounds of judicial review (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety).
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Ouster clauses do not protect errors of law that go to jurisdiction.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223
Classical unreasonableness test for executive decisions.
R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
Justiciability, prorogation review constraints on the executive.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603
Supremacy of EU law (pre-Brexit), Acts of Parliament could be disapplied.
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
Proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Procedural fairness, duty to give a hearing applies broadly.
Exam pitfalls to avoid
- Listing the JR grounds without locating them in the GCHQ taxonomy.
- Confusing standing (sufficient interest under s 31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981) with the substantive grounds.
- Stating that Parliament cannot bind its successors as if it were a settled rule, Jackson v Attorney General [2005] complicated the position.
- Failing to identify the correct interpretive duty: s 3 HRA 1998 first, then s 4 declaration of incompatibility as a last resort.
- Treating proportionality as identical to Wednesbury, Daly draws a clear distinction.
How ThinkLikeLaw helps with Public Law
- Walk through a judicial-review problem with the assistant to make sure you have addressed standing, grounds and remedies in the right order.
- Use the assistant to convert a JR essay outline into a proper Wednesbury / proportionality analysis.
- Generate flashcards on the Human Rights Act sections so s 3, s 4 and s 6 are second nature.