Procedures and remedies of judicial review of administrative action under section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981 and Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules
✅ Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Under Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Part 54 CPR (Civil Procedure Rules)
🔹 1. Introduction to Judicial Review in the UK
Judicial review is a legal process by which the courts supervise public authorities, ensuring their decisions comply with lawfulness, fairness, and reasonableness. It is not an appeal but a review of the legality of decisions or actions.
Judicial review is primarily regulated by:
Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules
🔹 2. Section 31 – Senior Courts Act 1981
This section provides the statutory basis for judicial review. It states:
Applications for judicial review are to be made to the High Court.
Only a person with sufficient interest (locus standi) may apply.
Remedies such as quashing orders, prohibiting orders, mandatory orders, declarations, and injunctions can be granted.
🔹 3. Part 54 – Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
This part of the CPR deals specifically with judicial review claims. It lays down the procedure, including:
🔸 Key Features of Part 54 CPR:
| Rule | Provision |
|---|---|
| 54.1 | Defines a claim for judicial review. |
| 54.2 | Requires permission (leave) to apply for judicial review. |
| 54.4 | The claim must be filed promptly, and within 3 months of the cause of action. |
| 54.6 | Claim form must be served on the defendant and interested parties. |
| 54.12 | Hearing of the application for judicial review. |
🔹 4. Stages of Judicial Review Procedure
✅ A. Pre-Action Protocol
Letter before claim is sent to the public authority.
Gives them a chance to resolve the matter.
✅ B. Permission Stage
Applicant must seek permission from the High Court.
Prevents frivolous or unmeritorious claims.
✅ C. Substantive Hearing
If permission is granted, a full hearing is conducted.
The court reviews the lawfulness of the action.
✅ D. Remedies
(Discussed below in detail)
🔹 5. Remedies Available Under Judicial Review (S.31 SCA 1981)
The court may issue any of the following remedies:
| Remedy | Description |
|---|---|
| Quashing Order (Certiorari) | Nullifies an unlawful decision. |
| Prohibiting Order (Prohibition) | Prevents a public body from acting unlawfully. |
| Mandatory Order (Mandamus) | Directs a public authority to carry out a legal duty. |
| Declaration | Clarifies the legal position or rights. |
| Injunction | Prevents an authority from acting in a certain way. |
| Damages | Granted only if the claimant is entitled under private law or Human Rights Act 1998. |
🔹 6. Leading Case Laws (More Than 4)
⚖️ 1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) UKHL 26
Facts:
A prison policy allowed searches of legal correspondence in the absence of prisoners.
Issue:
Whether the policy infringed on prisoners' rights to confidential legal advice.
Held:
The House of Lords held the policy was unlawful as it violated common law rights to legal privilege.
Significance:
Emphasized proportionality and necessity in administrative decisions.
Judicial review protects fundamental rights even in prisons.
⚖️ 2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985) AC 374
Facts:
The Prime Minister banned trade unions at GCHQ without consultation, citing national security.
Issue:
Could a prerogative power be judicially reviewed?
Held:
Yes, but limited to legality, not merits. The decision was lawful due to national security concerns.
Significance:
Established grounds of judicial review:
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural Impropriety
Extended judicial review to executive prerogative powers.
⚖️ 3. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire CC (1986) AC 240
Facts:
Challenge to the approval of grant allocations by central government.
Held:
Court refused to intervene, stating courts should not interfere with political or policy decisions unless they were irrational.
Significance:
Reinforced judicial restraint in matters involving political judgment.
Strengthened the "Wednesbury reasonableness" principle.
⚖️ 4. R (on the application of UNISON) v. Lord Chancellor (2017) UKSC 51
Facts:
Challenge to employment tribunal fees imposed by the Lord Chancellor.
Issue:
Whether tribunal fees hindered access to justice.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled the fees were unlawful as they restricted access to justice.
Significance:
Landmark case affirming access to justice as a constitutional right.
Demonstrated courts' readiness to quash administrative actions contrary to public interest.
⚖️ 5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994) 1 AC 531
Facts:
Prisoners challenged the Home Secretary's refusal to release them after life sentence without giving reasons.
Issue:
Is there a duty to give reasons in administrative decisions?
Held:
Yes. The decision was procedurally improper.
Significance:
Established that reasoned decisions are part of fair procedure.
Extended natural justice principles in judicial review.
🔹 7. Summary of Judicial Review Framework
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legal Source | Section 31 of Senior Courts Act 1981, Part 54 CPR |
| Grounds | Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety |
| Jurisdiction | High Court (Administrative Court) |
| Time Limit | Promptly and within 3 months |
| Permission Stage | Filters frivolous claims |
| Remedies | Quashing, Prohibition, Mandamus, Declaration, Injunction, Damages |
| Key Feature | Not an appeal, but a legality review |
🔹 8. Conclusion
Judicial review under Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Part 54 of the CPR plays a crucial role in upholding the Rule of Law and checking executive overreach. The courts are not concerned with the correctness of the decision but rather its legality, fairness, and rationality.
Judicial review empowers individuals to challenge public decisions and ensures that administrative bodies do not act beyond their powers or in violation of basic legal principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments