Judicial Review
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
PART II
ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BE SOUGHT?
The grounds for JR can be classified in at least three ways:
1. Two principal classes of action may be pursued under JR: those which allege that there has been a breach of statutory requirements, and those alleging that action has been taken in disregard of the rules of ‘natural justice’. 2. In Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case) Lord Diplock offered a threefold classification of the grounds for judicial review: (i) illegality; (ii) irrationality; and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is the classification followed below but it was accepted by the court that these categories were not exhaustive and might be added to in time. The classification is by no means perfect since the categories often overlap. 3. ‘Illegality’ and ‘irrationality’ are often referred to jointly under the heading unreasonableness’ or ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ from the case with the same name.
Below we lay out the minimum of information you will need to know regarding each of these grounds for JR.
Illegality Relevant here is the doctrine of ultra vires, Latin for ‘acting outside one’s lawful powers’, or ‘in excess of one’s lawful powers’. It contrasts with action within one’s powers (intra vires). Bear in mind, however, that some of the cases, which are classified below under ‘illegality’, are referred to as ‘unreasonable’ or ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’ in parts of the relevant literature. There are several grounds for the courts to rule illegality or unreasonableness, as shown below.
Lack of authority In its least problematic version the doctrine of ultra vires covers the ‘illegality’ of actions/decisions taken by public bodies that had no statutory authority to act/decide. For example, in
R v Richmond upon Thames City Council ex
PART II
ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN JUDICIAL REVIEW BE SOUGHT?
The grounds for JR can be classified in at least three ways:
1. Two principal classes of action may be pursued under JR: those which allege that there has been a breach of statutory requirements, and those alleging that action has been taken in disregard of the rules of ‘natural justice’. 2. In Council for the Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case) Lord Diplock offered a threefold classification of the grounds for judicial review: (i) illegality; (ii) irrationality; and (iii) procedural impropriety. This is the classification followed below but it was accepted by the court that these categories were not exhaustive and might be added to in time. The classification is by no means perfect since the categories often overlap. 3. ‘Illegality’ and ‘irrationality’ are often referred to jointly under the heading unreasonableness’ or ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ from the case with the same name.
Below we lay out the minimum of information you will need to know regarding each of these grounds for JR.
Illegality Relevant here is the doctrine of ultra vires, Latin for ‘acting outside one’s lawful powers’, or ‘in excess of one’s lawful powers’. It contrasts with action within one’s powers (intra vires). Bear in mind, however, that some of the cases, which are classified below under ‘illegality’, are referred to as ‘unreasonable’ or ‘Wednesbury unreasonable’ in parts of the relevant literature. There are several grounds for the courts to rule illegality or unreasonableness, as shown below.
Lack of authority In its least problematic version the doctrine of ultra vires covers the ‘illegality’ of actions/decisions taken by public bodies that had no statutory authority to act/decide. For example, in
R v Richmond upon Thames City Council ex