By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

as conclusive of the absence of a concert party situation and secondly that the panel didlikewise. But it is clear from the affidavit evidence of Sir Jasper Hollom, chairman of thepanel, that the panel make no such error.The panel approached the matter on the assumption that for a “concert party” to existthere had to be an agreement or understanding between the parties, and in the absence ofcontact at the presentation meeting, evidence had to be found elsewhere to support such afinding. Such evidence, sufficient to satisfy the panel, was not adduced, who thereforeconcluded that K.I.O’s decision to purchase the shares was made for genuine investmentreasons all of which explained both the purchase and its timing.In any event these were all matters of fact for the panel to consider so that even ifthe court had jurisdiction to intervene,it should not exercise its discretion in favour ofdoing so. But for the reasons given both on behalf of the interveners and previously onbehalf of the panel itself, the court has no jurisdiction to intervene and the applicationshould be refused.Lever in reply referred to Reg. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex parteNational Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.(1982) A.C 617,642-642-643,per Lord Diplock; O’Reilly v. Mackman (1983) 2 A.C. 237,257-258,per LordDenning M.R; In re Clifford and O’Sullivan (1921) 2 A.C 570; Reg v. Criminal InjuriesCompensation Board,Ex patre Lain (1967) 2 Q.B 864; Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) A.C 40;Rex v. Rorpell(1776) 2 Cowp. 458,Reg v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Exparte Byrne (1975) I.C.R. 221.The reality of the situation is that the self-regulation urged by the respondentsdoes not exist. The right of a man to offer to buy another’s property is restricted bystatutes such as the Fraud (Investment) Act 1958. He has to go through an authorisedperson or obtain the permission of the Department of Trade and Industry. Datafin cannotmake an offer except subject to the restrictions imposed. This strongly supports theconcept o implied devolution and the role of the function test which the applicants urgeupon the court. It is hollow to speak of self-regulation here; what we are discussing isclearly a public law. It must be a matter of deep concern to the courts if such a system canoperate out with the law.Even if a private remedy is available that is not fatal to a claim for judicial review.Only if the decision concerned is taken specifically by reference to a private law situationwill it be excluded from the public law jurisdiction. Even if there is a private lawrelationship in the present case, this decision was not taken in that context, so it is no barto the availability of the Order 53 jurisdiction.5 December. The following judgments were handed down.SIR JOHN DONALDSON M.R. T he Panel on take-overs and Mergers is a trulyremarkable body. Perched on the 20 th floor of the Stock Exchange building in the City ofLondon, both literally and metaphorically it oversees and regulates a very important part149