Hello everyone,
I have exams coming up and am unsure of what case to use to issustarte a point / provide authority.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming that using multiple cases to illustrate the exact same point would be redundant, for example, in relation to ulta vires in Judicial Review I could use two cases:
-Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (2010), which concerned two orders in council being held ultra vires as the court decided that the United Nations Act 1946 did not confer the power to make orders that overrode funtamental rights (which the orders did).
-R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Leech (1993), where prison rules made by the secretary of state under the Prison Act 1952 were held to be ultra vires as the court felt it could not have been parliament's intention to restrict access to the courts (Which a rule did).
The bit that confuses me is that they basically make the same point: you can't act outside your legal powers. For this reason, as I stated earlier, it would be reduntant to mention both of them, not to mention that it would feel like a waste of time as the exam is timed. Additionally, Leech is the leading case in Ultra Vires but Ahmed is a much more recent case, so do i use the recent one or the leading one?
Could someone please help clear up my confusion, thanks in advance.