| University | University of Bristol (UOB) |
|---|---|
| Subject | LAWDM0059 Public Law |
LAWDM0059 Public Law Coursework 2 2026: Judicial Review Problem Question (University of Bristol)
| University | University of Bristol Law School |
| Unit | LAWDM0059 Public Law |
| Assessment | Coursework 2: problem question (one section) |
| Weighting | 50% of the unit mark |
| Word limit | 2,000 words (bibliography and footnotes excluded) |
| Deadline | 12 midday, 10 December 2026, as a Word (.docx) file with the correct coversheet |
| Referencing | OSCOLA |
| Use of AI | Minimal: spelling and grammar checkers only; AI must not generate phrases, sentences or any content, including translation tools that produce whole sentences |
This LAWDM0059 coursework is a judicial review problem question built on a fictitious statute. You advise three parties affected by decisions of a new regulator on whether they can bring a claim, which grounds of review they can plausibly argue and how likely they are to succeed. Penalties apply for exceeding the word limit, and extension requests must be made at least 48 hours before the deadline.
The Problem Question
The (fictitious) Critical Water Infrastructure Act 2026 establishes a new body, the Water Infrastructure Authority (WIA).
- Section 1: the WIA “may issue binding directions to companies and other bodies operating or constructing large-scale water treatment or desalination facilities in the United Kingdom”.
- Section 2: failure to comply with such directions is punishable by heavy fines.
- Section 3: directions may be issued where the WIA considers them to have the purpose of ensuring (a) the secure and affordable supply of water; (b) public health and safety; (c) the resilience of the United Kingdom’s critical infrastructure.
The Events
- Minsk Hydro: the WIA announces that a decision made several months ago to award a contract to Minsk Hydro, a Belarusian state-linked company, to build a major water treatment facility in Lancashire is being revoked. Expecting the contract (its terms were still being negotiated), Minsk Hydro had already spent heavily, including buying UK premises and recruiting staff. The WIA refuses to give reasons, but a reliable inside source tells the press the decision followed heavy pressure from the UK Government, which wants to increase pressure on Russia and Belarus to show support for Ukraine.
- ClearFlow: the WIA instructs ClearFlow, which runs a sludge-processing facility in Kent, to cut the scale of its operations by 40%. The decision is based on evidence that the reduction is advisable for the facility’s structural safety. The facility’s sole function is to process industrial wastewater to extract a rare chemical compound that ClearFlow sells to the Ministry of Defence. ClearFlow says the decision will cost it a great deal of money.
- AquaTerra Industries: AquaTerra, a Dutch company, is awarded a contract to build a new desalination plant in Kent. Two months later, media reports reveal that the husband of the WIA’s Chief Executive owns shares in AquaTerra, although the Chief Executive was apparently unaware of this when the decision was made. BrightWell Ltd, a UK-based company, had also bid unsuccessfully for the contract.
Advise
- A) Minsk Hydro and ClearFlow in relation to decisions (1) and (2).
- B) Britain First (“BF”), a pressure group recently formed to lobby for public bodies to give priority to British infrastructure companies, in relation to decision (3).
Each party should be advised whether they may bring a claim in judicial review, what grounds they may plausibly argue, and their chances of success.
Need help with your LAWDM0059 judicial review problem question?
A strong LAWDM0059 answer follows the same order for every party: amenability and standing, then grounds, then remedies and prospects. For Minsk Hydro, think about legitimate expectation (Coughlan and the line of cases on substantive expectation), improper purpose and fettering under section 3, and whether the duty to give reasons applies. For ClearFlow, test proportionality and rationality against the safety evidence and the national-security context. For Britain First, the key issue is sufficient interest under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 for a newly formed pressure group, and apparent bias under Porter v Magill. Our law assignment help in the UK can guide your IRAC structure and OSCOLA footnotes. You can also see the DL404 public law assignment brief, the parliamentary sovereignty public law essay or our law answer samples.
