SQE1 sample questions

Question 36

A client objects to a decision which has been made to grant planning permission for the building of a supermarket on land near his home. The client has discovered that the chairman of the planning committee that made the decision is a non-executive director of the supermarket chain in question.

Which of the following best describes the status of this decision?

A. Only where the facts suggest to the court that there was in fact a conflict of interest and that the decision was in fact biased will the decision be held unlawful.

B. If the client can prove that a fair minded and informed observer would naturally conclude that there was a conflict of interest, the decision will be held to be automatically biased and thus unlawful.

C. For the decision to breach the rule against bias and thus be held unlawful, the client must prove to the court on a balance of probabilities that the chairman was actually biased.

D. Only if the facts suggest to the court that a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that the decision was biased will the decision be held unlawful.

E. If the facts suggest to the court that a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias, the decision will be held unlawful.