Grounds of judicial review of administrative action
1. Illegality
Ground: An administrative action must be within the scope of the authority granted by law. If a public authority acts outside its legal powers (ultra vires), the action can be quashed.
Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — also known as the GCHQ case
Facts: The government decided to prohibit employees of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) from belonging to trade unions, citing national security concerns.
Issue: Whether the government's decision was subject to judicial review, given its national security justification.
Held: The court held that the exercise of prerogative powers (executive powers without parliamentary approval) is subject to judicial review. The court recognized that actions are reviewable for legality, but also acknowledged limits when national security is involved.
Significance: It established that illegality is a core ground for review. Administrative actions must have legal authority and comply with the law.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Ground: An administrative decision will be unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The local authority granted a cinema license with the condition that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays.
Issue: The cinema challenged the condition as unreasonable.
Held: The court introduced the "Wednesbury test" for unreasonableness — a decision is irrational if it is “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.”
Significance: This case set the threshold for irrationality, showing courts intervene only when decisions are outrageously unreasonable.
3. Procedural Impropriety
Ground: Administrative bodies must follow fair procedures, including the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), and must not be biased (nemo judex in causa sua).
Case: Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
Facts: Ridge, a police chief, was dismissed without a hearing.
Issue: Whether dismissal without a fair hearing violated natural justice.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that natural justice must be observed in administrative decisions affecting rights, including the right to be heard.
Significance: It reinforced the importance of procedural fairness, especially in decisions affecting individuals' rights.
4. Legitimate Expectation
Ground: If a public authority has made a clear promise or established a practice, individuals may have a right to expect the authority will follow it unless there is a good reason not to.
Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — (also covers legitimate expectation)
Facts: Same as above, but the unions claimed there was a legitimate expectation they would be consulted before any change.
Held: The court accepted that legitimate expectation could arise, meaning authorities must keep their promises or consult unless overriding reasons exist.
Significance: Introduced the principle of legitimate expectation in administrative law.
5. Proportionality (more common in human rights contexts)
Ground: The administrative action must be proportionate to the aim pursued — it should not be excessive or overly restrictive.
Case: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (2013)
Facts: The UK government imposed sanctions on Bank Mellat, restricting its business due to alleged involvement in Iran's nuclear program.
Issue: Whether the sanctions were disproportionate.
Held: The court held that the sanctions regime was disproportionate and not justified by the aims pursued.
Significance: The case emphasized proportionality as a ground of review, especially in cases involving fundamental rights.
Summary Table:
| Ground | Key Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | GCHQ Case (1985) | Action must be within legal powers |
| Irrationality | Wednesbury (1948) | Decision must not be absurd or unreasonable |
| Procedural Impropriety | Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Fair procedures and hearings required |
| Legitimate Expectation | GCHQ Case (1985) | Public authority must honor promises or established practice |
| Proportionality | Bank Mellat (2013) | Action must be balanced and not excessive |
RELATED Blog
0 comments