Comparative analysis of judicial review standards
Judicial Review Standards: Overview
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality and reasonableness of administrative agency decisions. The standards of review differ based on:
The nature of the agency action (rulemaking, adjudication, licensing)
The statute involved
The jurisdiction (common law countries vary)
The constitutional context
The main standards include:
Chevron Deference (U.S.)
Wednesbury Unreasonableness (UK)
Proportionality (EU and common law)
Reasonableness (Canada)
Arbitrariness and Procedural Fairness (Global)
Key Cases Explaining Judicial Review Standards
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (U.S.)
Facts: EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act provisions regarding emissions.
Issue: Whether courts should defer to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes.
Holding: Established the Chevron two-step test:
Has Congress directly spoken to the precise issue? If yes, courts follow Congress.
If no, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?
Explanation: Courts give agencies deference when interpreting ambiguous statutes within their expertise.
Significance: A highly deferential standard, emphasizing agency expertise and policymaking discretion.
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts: A local council imposed a restrictive condition on cinema opening hours.
Issue: Whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Holding: Introduced the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard.
Explanation: Courts will only interfere if the decision is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it."
Significance: A very high threshold, often described as "irrationality," limiting judicial interference.
3. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (Canada)
Facts: Employment termination reviewed by administrative tribunal.
Issue: What standard applies to reviewing administrative decisions?
Holding: Defined two standards:
Correctness: No deference; court substitutes its view.
Reasonableness: Deferential; courts uphold decisions within a range of acceptable outcomes.
Explanation: Most administrative decisions reviewed for reasonableness; courts respect agency expertise but ensure decisions are justified.
Significance: Balances respect for agency with legal oversight; reasonableness standard is contextual and fact-specific.
4. **European Court of Justice (ECJ), Portugal v. Council, C-149/96 (1999)
Facts: EU Council adopted a regulation challenged for violating fundamental freedoms.
Issue: Whether the EU institution’s decision was proportionate.
Holding: Introduced the proportionality test in EU law.
Explanation: EU courts require that measures:
Are suitable to achieve the objective.
Are necessary (no less restrictive means).
Are proportionate in balancing interests.
Significance: Proportionality is a central, more nuanced standard in EU judicial review.
5. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case), [1985] AC 374 (UK)
Facts: Government banned union membership for security staff without consultation.
Issue: Whether the decision was lawful.
Holding: Established grounds of review: illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury), procedural impropriety.
Explanation: Judicial review checks legality, rationality, and fairness of decisions.
Significance: Broadened scope of judicial review but kept high threshold for irrationality.
6. Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No. 2), [2013] UKSC 39
Facts: Treasury imposed sanctions on a bank.
Issue: Whether the sanctions were lawful under judicial review.
Holding: Applied proportionality in a UK case involving fundamental rights.
Explanation: Demonstrated UK courts applying proportionality alongside Wednesbury, especially in rights-related cases.
Significance: Marks growing influence of proportionality in UK review.
Comparative Summary
| Jurisdiction | Standard | Key Features | Case Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Chevron Deference | Defer to agency reasonable statutory interpretations | Chevron v. NRDC (1984) |
| United Kingdom | Wednesbury Unreasonableness; Proportionality (in rights cases) | Very high threshold; irrationality; proportionality in rights | Associated Provincial v. Wednesbury (1948); Bank Mellat (2013) |
| Canada | Reasonableness & Correctness | Contextual deference; reasonableness is fact-specific | Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008) |
| European Union | Proportionality | Balancing test with suitability, necessity, proportionality | Portugal v. Council (1999) |
In essence:
Chevron (U.S.) encourages deference to agency expertise unless Congress is explicit otherwise.
Wednesbury (UK) restricts court interference unless decisions are outrageously unreasonable.
Proportionality (EU and increasingly UK) introduces a structured balancing test, especially in rights contexts.
Reasonableness (Canada) provides flexible deference, respecting agency expertise while guarding legality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments