The concept of jurisdictional error and judicial review grounds;
Concept of Jurisdictional Error and Judicial Review Grounds
What is Jurisdictional Error?
Jurisdictional error occurs when a public authority or tribunal acts beyond or outside the powers conferred by law (i.e., beyond its jurisdiction). This could be:
Acting without jurisdiction (no power at all).
Acting beyond jurisdiction (exceeding the scope of power).
Failure to exercise jurisdiction when required.
Misinterpreting the enabling statute so badly that the decision is invalid.
Jurisdictional errors render the decision null and void because the authority is not legally competent to make such a decision.
Importance in Administrative Law
Jurisdictional error is a key ground for judicial review of administrative actions.
It ensures public authorities do not overreach or misuse their powers.
It protects the rule of law by holding the government accountable to the law.
Grounds for Judicial Review
Judicial review allows courts to examine administrative decisions and invalidate them on several grounds, such as:
Jurisdictional Error (lack or excess of power).
Illegality: Acting contrary to law or without legal authority.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedure or natural justice.
Irrationality/Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made them.
Proportionality: (Emerging ground in some jurisdictions) Actions must be proportionate to the aim pursued.
Important Case Laws on Jurisdictional Error and Judicial Review Grounds
1. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL)
Facts:
Anisminic challenged the Foreign Compensation Commission’s decision, alleging a jurisdictional error.
Holding & Reasoning:
The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public authority is effectively a jurisdictional error. Even if a statute states that the decision is “final,” such decisions can be reviewed if there is an error of law.
Significance:
This case broadened the concept of jurisdictional error.
Established that jurisdictional error includes errors of law made within jurisdiction.
The famous principle: “A decision made in error of law is no decision at all.”
Marked a turning point for judicial review, emphasizing courts’ supervisory role.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case), [1985] AC 374 (HL)
Facts:
The government issued a policy banning union membership among GCHQ employees without consultation.
Holding & Reasoning:
The House of Lords held that the exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review for jurisdictional errors such as illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. However, national security considerations made the decision non-justiciable here.
Significance:
Affirmed grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety.
Highlighted limits on judicial review (e.g., national security).
Explained that judicial review is not confined to statutory bodies but also applies to prerogative powers.
3. R v. Electricity Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee, [1924] 1 KB 171
Facts:
Issue whether the Electricity Commissioners acted within their jurisdiction.
Holding & Reasoning:
The court held that if a statutory body acts beyond the powers conferred, the decision is a nullity. This is a classical example of jurisdictional error.
Significance:
Early foundational case establishing excess of jurisdiction as a ground for judicial review.
Reaffirmed that actions outside statutory authority are void.
4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts:
A local authority imposed conditions on cinema operation, challenged as unreasonable.
Holding & Reasoning:
The court introduced the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness: a decision is reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it.
Significance:
Established irrationality as a ground of judicial review.
Set a high threshold for unreasonableness, protecting administrative discretion.
Helped define limits of judicial intervention in administrative decisions.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bugdaycay, [1987] AC 514
Facts:
Examined procedural fairness and bias in an immigration decision.
Holding & Reasoning:
The court held that procedural impropriety, such as failure to provide a fair hearing, is a ground for judicial review. Procedural fairness is essential for valid decisions.
Significance:
Reinforced natural justice and procedural fairness as grounds for review.
Highlighted the importance of fair hearing and impartiality in administrative action.
Summary of Key Principles
Jurisdictional error involves acting outside legal authority and invalidates decisions.
Grounds of judicial review include jurisdictional error, illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality.
Courts ensure administrative decisions comply with law, fairness, and reason.
The Anisminic case expanded jurisdictional error to include errors of law within jurisdiction.
Judicial review balances administrative discretion with rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments