Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
I. Introduction
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the actions, decisions, or omissions of administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the law. It is a vital mechanism for upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and preventing abuse of administrative power.
II. Grounds for Judicial Review
The key grounds on which administrative actions can be challenged include:
Illegality: The decision-maker must act within the powers conferred by law (ultra vires doctrine).
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): The decision must be reasonable and not so outrageous that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Procedural Impropriety: Fair procedures must be followed, including the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) and rule against bias.
Proportionality: The decision should not be excessive or disproportionate to the aim pursued (more common in European law).
Error of Law: Incorrect interpretation or application of the law.
III. Case Law Analysis
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Context:
The case defined the standard of "reasonableness" in judicial review.
Facts:
Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition restricting children under 15 from attending cinema on Sundays.
Holding:
The Court held that a decision would only be overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
This standard is known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Explanation:
It established the high threshold for courts to interfere with administrative discretion unless it is irrational.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (The GCHQ Case)
Context:
This case clarified the scope and grounds of judicial review in the UK.
Facts:
The government banned trade union activities at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) without consultation.
Holding:
The House of Lords recognized three grounds of review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
It also introduced the concept of legitimate expectation—when a public authority has promised certain procedures, it must honor them.
Explanation:
This landmark case expanded the judicial review doctrine and emphasized fairness in administrative actions.
3. Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Context:
The case reinforced the importance of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Facts:
A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Holding:
The House of Lords held the dismissal invalid due to lack of a fair hearing.
It confirmed that procedural fairness is essential in administrative decision-making.
Explanation:
A cornerstone case affirming procedural safeguards under judicial review.
4. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Context:
The case dealt with the scope of judicial review and the effect of ouster clauses.
Facts:
Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, which the government argued was final and not subject to review.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that errors of law made by an administrative body could be reviewed by courts despite ouster clauses.
It effectively expanded the jurisdiction of courts to review administrative decisions.
Explanation:
This case significantly widened judicial review, preventing administrative bodies from being immune from legal scrutiny.
5. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997
Context:
The case concerned the exercise of discretionary powers.
Facts:
The Minister refused to refer complaints for investigation, which was challenged as an abuse of discretion.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that discretion must be exercised to promote the purpose of the statute.
It cannot be used arbitrarily or for improper purposes.
Explanation:
This case reinforced that discretion must be exercised reasonably and lawfully.
6. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (Canada)
Context:
A Canadian Supreme Court decision refining standards of review in administrative law.
Facts:
Dunsmuir challenged his dismissal by a government employer, arguing the administrative decision was unfair.
Holding:
The Court simplified the standards into two: reasonableness and correctness.
Emphasized deference to administrative expertise but insisted decisions must fall within a range of reasonable outcomes.
Explanation:
It reflects modern judicial review’s balance between deference and accountability.
IV. Summary Table of Case Law Principles
| Case | Principle Established | Impact on Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Wednesbury | Irrationality as ground for review | High threshold for interference |
| GCHQ Case | Grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety; legitimate expectation | Expanded grounds and fairness |
| Ridge v. Baldwin | Procedural fairness and natural justice | Ensures fair hearing in administrative actions |
| Anisminic | Errors of law reviewable despite ouster clauses | Courts have wide jurisdiction to review decisions |
| Padfield | Proper exercise of discretion | Prevents abuse of discretionary powers |
| Dunsmuir (Canada) | Reasonableness and correctness standards | Balances deference with accountability |
V. Conclusion
Judicial review serves as a crucial check on administrative power, ensuring that decisions are made according to law, fairness, and reasonableness. The courts have progressively expanded their oversight to prevent abuse, guarantee procedural fairness, and maintain the rule of law in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments