Does section 1(2) of the Flood Compensation Act prevent Helen from seeking judicial review of the decision of the Flood Compensation Tribunal?

Read the following scenario and then answer the question

The UK experiences several months of unprecedented storms which, combined with a series of unusually high tides, cause severe flooding in low-lying coastal areas. In some areas the flooding is on a scale never seen before, extending several miles inland and threatening towns and cities which had always been regarded as safe from coastal flooding. The government’s scientific advisors officially designate this as a “1 in 500 years” event.

During the crisis the government, acting under the Royal Prerogative, seizes a number of areas of land which it has decided are necessary for the construction of emergency flood barriers which are needed to protect particular towns and cities which are currently undefended. Owing to the urgency of the situation, the government informs the landowners in question that issues of compensation will not be addressed immediately, but that all landowners affected will in due course  be able to submit a compensation claim to a tribunal which will be established solely for this purpose.

When the crisis has eased, the government therefore secures the passage through Parliament of the Flood Compensation Act (FCA), which establishes the Flood Compensation Tribunal (FCT). Section 1 of the FCA contains the following provisions:

S.1 (1): “The FCT shall have sole jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate upon compensation claims arising from the seizure of land for the construction of flood defences.”

S.1 (2): “Decisions of the FCT, including decisions as to its jurisdiction, are final and conclusive and may not questioned in any court of law.”

S.1 (3): “When considering claims for compensation under this section, the FCT may follow whatever process it deems appropriate.”

Faced with a large number of potential cases, the FCT decides that it will deal with all claims by written submission, but that individual applicants may request a personal hearing and that any such request will be judged on its merits.

Helen is one of the landowners whose land was seized by the government. She submits a detailed written claim to the FCT, providing all of the information requested. For many years Helen has suffered particularly badly with mental health issues, and she feels that the written details do not fully convey the impact which the loss of her land has had on her wellbeing. She therefore asks to be allowed to appear in person before the FCT in order to emphasise this, and receives the following written response from the FCT:

“We can assure you that all payments to successful applicants are calculated to recognise not just the financial but also the personal impact of the measures taken. We do not therefore believe that a personal hearing in respect of this issue would serve any useful purpose.”

Helen’s claim is subsequently successful, but she believes that the amount awarded would have been much greater had she been allowed to appear in person before the FCT.

Giles is the owner of farmland on the outskirts of Melchester, a small town 10 miles from the coast which has never before been affected by coastal flooding. Although his land was seized by the government under the Royal Prerogative, no flood barriers have been constructed on it as yet because the crisis had begun to ease before work had started. The government, however, has informed Giles that it still plans to proceed with the erection of the barriers as they may be needed in future. Giles believes that this conclusion is unreasonable, because if the barriers weren’t required for a “1 in 500 years” event they are unlikely to be needed in the foreseeable future.  Rather than claim compensation, he therefore wishes to seek judicial review of the government’s decision to seize his property.

Following criticism of its use of the Royal Prerogative to seize land for flood defences, the government also secures the passage through Parliament of the Emergency Flood Defences Act (EFDA). This Act contains a new statutory scheme and procedure for the provision of emergency flood defences. The Act makes no mention of the Royal Prerogative, but the Prime Minister explains in Parliament that “it won’t replace the Royal Prerogative but will operate alongside it.”

 

 

Discuss violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in a Libya Armed conflict.

Discuss violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in a Libya Armed conflict.

Discuss the criminal liability of Brenda, Dev and Masatoshi.

Brenda is a freelance graphic designer who works from home but was finding it hard to focus on her work with her daughter also at home all day while the schools were closed under COVID regulations (to all but the children of key workers). One morning Brenda accompanies her daughter to her school. Brenda persuaded the teacher at the school gate to take her daughter for the day, telling him untruthfully that she was a key worker, an intensive care nurse working nights, but had been too stressed to tell the school sooner. The next day Brenda received an e-mail confirming her daughter could attend school daily as the daughter of a key worker—for which no payment was required, it being a state school. Moreover, Brenda’s daughter could also attend the after school club for two hours a day, for which payment was usually required, but was being waived for the children of key workers during the COVID period, the only children permitted to attend. This came as a pleasant surprise to Brenda who did not know the after school club was running at all in the COVID period. Brenda’s daughter attended both regular school and the after school club for nearly a month until her mother’s deception was discovered. Brenda’s near neighbour Dev has often worked as a ‘personal driver’ for Boss, a gang member with a reputation for violence towards those who cross him. Dev had indeed completed a prison sentence four years earlier for keeping lookout and driving Boss away after the latter had committed armed robbery. Boss has now also finally completed his prison sentence and threw a party at his house to celebrate his release. Dev, on leaving the party, made the mistake of smuggling out Boss’s prized Samurai sword. Dev only meant to take the sword for a little while and then return it to Boss in front of an audience for a laugh. The trouble was Boss immediately took the loss of the sword (which he had himself stolen from someone else) extremely badly and ever since has repeatedly vowed to kill whoever took it when he finds out who that is. Dev hid the sword at home in the hope Boss would one day stop the threats so he could return the sword safely.
Dev decided to confide his problem to his friend Masatoshi. Masatoshi owns a restaurant on the other side of town and suggested that he should borrow the sword himself. He explained that a feature of the décor at his restaurant is a set of Samurai swords hanging on the wall. Masatoshi’s solution was simply to hang Boss’s sword up in plain sight with the rest of his collection. Dev agreed and passed the sword to Masatoshi, thinking he would get the sword back from Masatoshi and return it to Boss when Boss finally stops issuing threats. Masatoshi in turn figured that he could protect Dev with this plan and enhance his sword collection at the same
time. Without telling Dev, Masatoshi resolved never to return the sword to Dev as he did not believe Boss could ever be trusted not to kill Dev if he finds out what Dev did, even if Boss has stopped issuing threats beforehand.
Discuss the criminal liability of Brenda, Dev and Masatoshi.

Analyse the effectiveness of the law and governance principles relating to the shareholders say on pay.

‘The rules relating to the shareholders “say on” pay found in the Companies Act 2006 are needlessly complex and has proven to be an ineffective mechanism to combat excessive executive director pay’

Discuss this quote. Analyse the effectiveness of the law and governance principles relating to the shareholders say on pay.

 

Discuss Enforcement of intellectual property rights in developing countries.

Discuss Enforcement of intellectual property rights in developing countries.

Describe how to Making Decisions that are Legal and Ethical.

Describe how to Making Decisions that are Legal and Ethical.

Critically discuss the role of the Prudential Regulation Committee and the Prudential Regulatory Authority in regulating banks operating in the UK.

Critically discuss the role of the Prudential Regulation Committee and the Prudential Regulatory Authority in regulating banks operating in the UK.

While there are calls to better integrate the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, they should remain distinct. They deal with separate problems so the statutes should likewise remain separate. Critically analyse this statement.

While there are calls to better integrate the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, they should remain distinct. They deal with separate problems so the statutes should likewise remain separate. Critically analyse this statement.

Discuss the radicalisation pathway from Wahhabism to Salafi Jihadism’

Discuss the radicalisation pathway from Wahhabism to Salafi Jihadism’.

Write a report on how it might explain ‘law’ to The Amesemians, in terms of these three concepts.

Representatives from the distant planet Amesemi have landed on Earth. They come in peace. Efforts are underway to enable Earthlings and Amesemians to understand each other; this involves an honest and accurate explanation of our respective civilizations. The newly established “United Kingdom Ministry of Extra-Terrestrial Affairs” (‘The Ministry’) has discovered that the Amesemians have no word for ‘law’ and no equivalent to this concept. They do, however, understand ‘justice’, ‘socially-constructed rules’, and ‘oppression’. The Ministry has commissioned you to write a report on how it might explain ‘law’ to The Amesemians, in terms of these three concepts.  Do so. Note that the report is to The Ministry and not the representatives from Amesemi themselves. As a result, you should feel free to use or explain other concepts, which Amesemians may or may not understand, as part of your recommendation.

Your report should take the form of an essay.

It should be a maximum of 5,000 words long, and include both footnotes and bibliography, with correct citation throughout.