Sources of Administrative Law in the UK
Sources of Administrative Law in the UK
I. Introduction to Administrative Law in the UK
Administrative law in the UK governs the powers and duties of public bodies and ensures they act lawfully. It controls the exercise of public power and provides remedies when authorities exceed their powers or act unfairly.
Key Points:
The UK does not have a single codified constitution, so administrative law derives from multiple sources.
It is largely based on common law principles, statutes, and conventions.
Judicial review is the main mechanism to challenge administrative actions.
II. Sources of Administrative Law in the UK
1. Statutory Law
Parliament enacts statutes that create public bodies and delegate powers.
Statutes specify how powers are to be exercised and set limits on discretion.
Many administrative powers arise from Acts of Parliament.
2. Common Law
Common law principles developed by courts regulate administrative actions.
Includes doctrines like natural justice, procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, proportionality, and ultra vires.
Courts interpret statutory powers and ensure they are exercised properly.
3. Delegated Legislation
Parliament often delegates legislative powers to government ministers or agencies.
Includes statutory instruments, by-laws, and rules.
Subject to judicial review if the delegated powers are exceeded.
4. Conventions and Ministerial Guidance
While non-binding, conventions guide the behavior of public authorities.
Guidance documents or codes of practice can influence decision-making but cannot override statutes.
5. European Union Law and Human Rights Law
Historically, EU law was a major source until Brexit.
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, influencing administrative decisions.
III. Key Cases Illustrating Sources of Administrative Law
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
Court: House of Lords
Facts: The government banned trade union membership at GCHQ without consultation. The unions challenged the decision as unlawful.
Issue:
Does the government have to follow principles of natural justice and consult before exercising prerogative powers?
Decision:
The court held that judicial review applies to prerogative powers, but the scope of review depends on the context.
In this case, national security justified the lack of consultation.
Significance:
Established the principle that all public powers, including prerogative powers, are subject to judicial review.
Clarified limits of natural justice depending on the nature of power exercised.
2. Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Court: House of Lords
Facts: Anisminic’s claim was rejected by the Foreign Compensation Commission. The Act contained an ouster clause stating decisions were “final.”
Issue:
Can courts review decisions despite an ouster clause that says the decision is final?
Decision:
The court ruled that errors of law made by a public body render the decision null and void, so the ouster clause did not prevent judicial review.
Significance:
Dramatically expanded judicial review powers.
Established that courts can review any error of law, even if Parliament tries to exclude review.
3. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001)
Court: House of Lords
Facts: Daly challenged a prison policy allowing cells to be searched in his absence, claiming it violated his right to confidential legal correspondence.
Issue:
Was the prison policy lawful under the principle of proportionality and natural justice?
Decision:
The court held the policy was unlawful because it failed the proportionality test.
Established proportionality as a key principle in administrative law when rights are restricted.
Significance:
Marked the acceptance of proportionality (traditionally a European law principle) into UK administrative law.
Strengthened protection of individual rights against administrative actions.
4. R (on the application of Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: The government sought to trigger Article 50 to leave the EU without Parliamentary approval.
Issue:
Could the government use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must authorize the triggering of Article 50.
Prerogative powers cannot be used to change domestic law or rights without parliamentary approval.
Significance:
Reinforced Parliamentary sovereignty as a cornerstone of UK constitutional and administrative law.
Showed limits on executive power.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) (1994)
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: Greenpeace challenged the government’s decision to license a nuclear power plant on environmental grounds.
Issue:
Did the decision comply with statutory duties and was there proper consultation?
Decision:
The court held that the government’s decision was unlawful due to failure to consider environmental regulations and consult properly.
Significance:
Demonstrated the importance of compliance with statutory duties.
Highlighted the need for proper procedure and consultation under administrative law.
6. R (Evans) v. Attorney General (2015)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: Journalist requested disclosure of Prince Charles’s letters to government under the Freedom of Information Act. The government refused.
Issue:
Can the Attorney General use prerogative powers to veto the release of information?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the government’s veto was unlawful and that the information should be disclosed.
Significance:
Emphasized principles of transparency and accountability.
Limited the scope of executive discretion and prerogative powers.
IV. Summary Table of Key Sources and Cases
| Source | Explanation | Case Example | Principle Highlighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory Law | Powers delegated by Acts of Parliament | Greenpeace v. Secretary of State | Compliance with statutory duties |
| Common Law | Developed by courts; natural justice, ultra vires | Anisminic Ltd v. FCC | Review of errors of law despite ouster clauses |
| Prerogative Powers | Executive powers subject to judicial review | GCHQ Case | Limits on prerogative power |
| Parliamentary Sovereignty | Parliament’s supremacy over executive actions | Miller Case | Requirement for parliamentary approval |
| Human Rights & Proportionality | Rights protected against administrative actions | Daly Case | Proportionality in administrative decisions |
| Transparency & Accountability | Public access to government information | Evans Case | Limits on executive veto powers |
V. Conclusion
The UK’s administrative law is a complex tapestry derived from statutes, common law principles, prerogative powers, and constitutional doctrines such as Parliamentary sovereignty. The cases discussed show how courts balance the powers of the state with protection of individual rights, ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments