By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The applicants. Who were bidding in competition with N. Plc. To take over anothercompany complained to the panel of take –over another company. Complained to thePanel of Take-overs and Mergers that N.Plc had acted in concert with other parties inbreach of the City Code on Take overs and Mergers. The panel dismissed the complaintand the applicants applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review by wayinter alia . of certiorari to quash the panels decision and of mandamus to compel the panelto reconsider the complaint .The judge refused leave on the ground that the panelsdecision was not susceptible to judicial review.On the renewed application before the Court of appeal the court ranting leave in orderitself to consider both the substantive application and the question of jurisdiction:-Held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court was adaptable and couldbe extended to any body which performed or operated as an integral part of a systemwhich performed public law duties.Which was supported by public law sanctions and which was under an obligation to actjudicially, but whose source of power was not simply the consent of those over whom itexercised that power; that although the panel purported to be part of a system of selfregulationand to derive its power solely from the consent of those whom its decisionsaffected, it was in fact operating as an integral part of a government framework for theregulation of financial activity in the city of London was supported by a periphery ofstatutory powers and penalties,and was under a duty in exercising what amounted topublic powers to act judicially; that, therefore, the court had jurisdiction to review thepanel’s decision to dismiss the applicants complaint; but that since, on the facts, therewere no grounds for interfering with the panel’s decision the court would decline toentervene (post,pp.835b-836a, 838b-839a,844e-h,846c-d,848h-849d.h.852a-d)Reg. v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte lain (1967) 2 Q.B864,D.C.,appliedPer Sir John Donaldson M.R. In the light of the special nature of the panel, itsfunction, the market in which it is operating, the time scales which are inherent in thatmarket and the need to safeguard the position of third parties, who may be numbered inthousands, all of whom are entitled to continue toAbadesa (1967) 1 A.C. 826,per Lord Pearce at p.846 . (The emphasis is mine.) If thejudge had taken the latter course, it seems clear that he would have regarded theresponsibility of the plaintiff vis-à-vis each defendant as being 50 per cent.Section 2(1) of the Act of 1978 requires that as between the two defendants, theamounts of their respective contributions “shall be such as may be found by the court tobe just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility of thedamage in question. “I see no sufficient grounds for differing from the judge’s conclusionthat the responsibility of each of the two defendants for that part of the injury for whichthe plaintiff was not responsible was equal.I therefore agree that the appeal of each of the defendants should be allowed onthe limited issue of apportionment and that the judge’s order should be varied by giving141