Remedies in judicial review: certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, injunction, declaration
Remedies in Judicial Review
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure legality, fairness, and reasonableness. When courts find that a public authority has acted unlawfully, they provide remedies to correct or prevent the abuse of power.
The principal remedies in judicial review include:
1. Certiorari
Meaning: An order issued by a higher court to quash or nullify the decision or proceedings of a lower court, tribunal, or administrative authority.
Purpose: To correct errors of law or jurisdictional excesses by the decision-maker.
When Used: Where the decision-making body acted beyond its jurisdiction or violated principles of natural justice.
2. Mandamus
Meaning: A command issued by the court directing a public official or body to perform a public duty which they have failed or refused to perform.
Purpose: To compel performance of a legal duty.
When Used: Where a public authority neglects or refuses to perform a mandatory duty.
3. Prohibition
Meaning: A preventive order issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal forbidding it from proceeding with a case it has no jurisdiction to hear.
Purpose: To restrain unlawful or unauthorized proceedings.
When Used: To prevent jurisdictional overreach.
4. Injunction
Meaning: A court order restraining a party from doing a particular act.
Purpose: To prevent ongoing or imminent unlawful acts by public or private bodies.
When Used: When an act threatens to cause irreparable harm or violates rights.
5. Declaration
Meaning: A formal statement by the court clarifying the legal rights or status of parties.
Purpose: To remove uncertainty or dispute over rights.
When Used: When parties seek judicial clarification without necessarily requiring coercive action.
Case Laws Illustrating Remedies in Judicial Review
1. R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Padfield (1968) – Certiorari
Facts: The Home Secretary refused to refer a complaint about a milk marketing scheme to a committee as required by statute.
Issue: Whether the refusal was lawful.
Holding: The House of Lords quashed the Home Secretary’s decision via certiorari because it was an abuse of discretion.
Significance: Established that certiorari can be used to correct discretionary decisions made unlawfully or for improper purposes.
2. R v. Cornwall County Council, ex parte Huntington (1992) – Mandamus
Facts: A local council failed to provide special education services despite a statutory obligation.
Issue: Whether the council could be compelled to fulfill its statutory duty.
Holding: The court issued mandamus compelling the council to perform its duty.
Significance: Demonstrates mandamus as a remedy to enforce public duties and protect rights.
3. R v. Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page (1993) – Prohibition
Facts: An administrative tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in a university disciplinary matter.
Issue: Whether prohibition could stop the tribunal from proceeding.
Holding: The court granted prohibition to prevent unauthorized proceedings.
Significance: Shows prohibition’s role in preventing jurisdictional overreach.
4. American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd (1975) – Injunction
Facts: The claimant sought an injunction to stop alleged patent infringement.
Issue: Whether to grant an interlocutory injunction.
Holding: The court set out tests (balance of convenience, serious question to be tried) and granted the injunction.
Significance: Though a private law case, it influences judicial review injunctions by showing the criteria for granting injunctive relief.
5. GCHQ Case (Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985) – Declaration
Facts: The government banned trade union activities at GCHQ without consultation.
Issue: Whether the ban was lawful and the rights of employees.
Holding: The court declared the ban unlawful due to failure of procedural fairness.
Significance: Demonstrates the use of declarations to affirm rights and unlawful conduct, even where coercive remedies may not be issued.
6. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) – Certiorari
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition restricting cinema opening hours.
Issue: Whether the decision was so unreasonable that it should be quashed.
Holding: The court held that certiorari was justified where decisions are “Wednesbury unreasonable” (irrational).
Significance: Certiorari can quash decisions that are irrational or perverse.
7. R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (1990) – Injunction
Facts: Fishing company challenged legislation restricting fishing licenses.
Issue: Whether interim relief (injunction) could be granted against an Act of Parliament.
Holding: The House of Lords allowed an injunction pending full trial.
Significance: Landmark for judicial review injunctions restraining unlawful governmental acts.
Summary Table of Remedies and Case Law
| Remedy | Purpose | Key Case Example | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | Quash unlawful decisions | R v. Home Sec, ex parte Padfield | Corrects abuse of discretion |
| Mandamus | Compel performance of public duty | R v. Cornwall CC, ex parte Huntington | Enforces statutory duties |
| Prohibition | Prevent unlawful proceedings | R v. Hull Univ Visitor, ex parte Page | Stops jurisdictional overreach |
| Injunction | Restrain unlawful acts | American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon | Prevents irreparable harm |
| Declaration | Clarify legal rights/status | GCHQ Case | Affirms rights, guides conduct |
RELATED Blog
0 comments