The Court of Appeal considered: (a) whether the terms of reference were ultra vires because of their breadth; (b) the test for whether a misdirection is material; (c) whether Commissions of Inquiry had an implied power to limit the scope of inquiry; (d) whether a misdirection can give rise to a claim for damages in judicial review proceedings.
Case outcome
The Court of Appeal’s judgment was delivered by Sir Christopher Clarke P and determined that: (a) the terms of reference were not ultra vires for being too broad generally and because the Commission of Inquiry had an obligation to interpret them; (b) the proper test for materiality of a misdirection is whether a decision maker would have reached the same conclusion had the misdirection not occurred; (c) whether there was an implied power is to be determined by the wording of the terms of reference and the Commission of Inquiry had not such implied power; and (d) damages in judicial review proceedings are generally not recoverable for a misdirection by a decision maker.