Judicial review of tribunals
Judicial Review of Tribunals
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the decisions or actions of administrative bodies, including tribunals, to ensure that they act lawfully, fairly, and within the scope of their authority. Tribunals are specialized bodies that deal with specific types of disputes, such as labor, tax, or immigration matters. Since tribunals perform quasi-judicial functions, their decisions can be subject to judicial review by higher courts.
The courts generally do not interfere with the merits of a tribunal’s decision but will intervene if:
The tribunal acted without jurisdiction (ultra vires).
There was a procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice (e.g., bias, lack of hearing).
The decision was irrational or perverse (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
The tribunal failed to follow statutory requirements or acted beyond its powers.
Important Case Laws on Judicial Review of Tribunals
1. R. v. Medical Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gilmore (1957)
Facts:
The Medical Appeal Tribunal decided to reject the applicant’s claim for a disability pension without giving reasons for its decision.
Issue:
Whether the tribunal is obligated to provide reasons for its decisions.
Held:
The court held that tribunals are generally not required to give reasons for their decisions unless a statute requires it. However, if the tribunal fails to act fairly or does not provide the parties with an opportunity to understand the basis of the decision, this can be challenged.
Significance:
This case established that the duty to give reasons depends on the nature of the tribunal and the statutory framework. It emphasized fairness but also recognized practical limitations on tribunals.
2. Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts:
Anisminic Ltd challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission that denied them compensation for nationalized property.
Issue:
Whether an error of law made by a tribunal or commission could be reviewed by courts despite an ouster clause in the statute.
Held:
The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a tribunal meant that the decision was a nullity and thus was open to judicial review, even if the statute included a clause purporting to exclude judicial review (ouster clause).
Significance:
This case is a landmark decision that expanded judicial review by ruling that errors of law are reviewable, preventing tribunals from having the final say if they misinterpret their powers. It protected the courts' supervisory role over tribunals.
3. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994)
Facts:
Doody was serving a life sentence and applied for judicial review of the Home Secretary’s failure to provide reasons for setting his minimum term.
Issue:
Whether the decision-maker must give reasons for a decision in the context of sentencing.
Held:
The court held that although there was no general duty to give reasons, it was necessary in certain circumstances for fairness, especially where rights or important interests are affected. Reasons allow for meaningful judicial review.
Significance:
This case refined the law on procedural fairness, establishing that tribunals or decision-makers must provide reasons where justice requires it, particularly for serious decisions affecting rights.
4. R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc (1987)
Facts:
Datafin challenged decisions of a private body (Take-overs Panel) that regulated mergers and acquisitions in the financial sector.
Issue:
Whether decisions by a private body performing a public function could be subject to judicial review.
Held:
The court held that bodies exercising public functions, even if not strictly public authorities, could be subject to judicial review. Since the Take-overs Panel had a significant public regulatory role, its decisions were reviewable.
Significance:
This case broadened judicial review by including private bodies exercising public powers under the doctrine of public law, which includes tribunals and similar bodies.
Summary
Gilmore (1957): Tribunals may not always need to give reasons but must act fairly.
Anisminic (1969): Courts can review tribunal decisions for errors of law, even with ouster clauses.
Doody (1994): Important decisions require giving reasons for fairness and meaningful review.
Datafin (1987): Judicial review applies to private bodies exercising public functions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments