Functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Act

Abstract

Considers the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b), which allows judicial review of "functions of a public nature" if exercised incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 and notes the consequences of interpreting the phrase broadly, including the risk of litigation between private parties. Reviews case law on its interpretation, including the Court of Appeal ruling in R. (on the application of Heather) v Leonard Cheshire Foundation and the House of Lords' decision in Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank and comments on the distinctions between s.6(3)(b) of the 1998 Act and the public function test under CPR Part 54. Discusses the difficulties posed for many broad interpretations of s.6 by misleading terminology and the advantages of the approach adopted by the Queens Bench Division in R. (on the application of A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd.