Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    Grounds of Judicial Review Notes

    Uploaded by

    Maryam Nadha
    The document discusses the grounds and principles of judicial review. It outlines three main grounds established in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985): (1) illegality, (2) irrationality, and (3) procedural impropriety. It also discusses the traditional concept of ultra vires, where a decision maker acts outside their jurisdiction or in a procedurally irregular or unreasonable manner. However, the doctrine of ultra vires alone cannot fully explain the scope of judicial review. There are now three principal approaches to understanding the constitutional basis of judicial review: upholding ultra vires, focusing on common law principles, or seeking a middle way between these two.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Grounds of Judicial Review Notes

    Uploaded by

    Maryam Nadha
    160 views2 pages
    The document discusses the grounds and principles of judicial review. It outlines three main grounds established in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985): (1) illegality, (2) irrationality, and (3) procedural impropriety. It also discusses the traditional concept of ultra vires, where a decision maker acts outside their jurisdiction or in a procedurally irregular or unreasonable manner. However, the doctrine of ultra vires alone cannot fully explain the scope of judicial review. There are now three principal approaches to understanding the constitutional basis of judicial review: upholding ultra vires, focusing on common law principles, or seeking a middle way between these two.

    Original Description:

    Administrative law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the grounds and principles of judicial review. It outlines three main grounds established in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985): (1) illegality, (2) irrationality, and (3) procedural impropriety. It also discusses the traditional concept of ultra vires, where a decision maker acts outside their jurisdiction or in a procedurally irregular or unreasonable manner. However, the doctrine of ultra vires alone cannot fully explain the scope of judicial review. There are now three principal approaches to understanding the constitutional basis of judicial review: upholding ultra vires, focusing on common law principles, or seeking a middle way between these two.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views2 pages

    Grounds of Judicial Review Notes

    Uploaded by

    Maryam Nadha
    The document discusses the grounds and principles of judicial review. It outlines three main grounds established in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985): (1) illegality, (2) irrationality, and (3) procedural impropriety. It also discusses the traditional concept of ultra vires, where a decision maker acts outside their jurisdiction or in a procedurally irregular or unreasonable manner. However, the doctrine of ultra vires alone cannot fully explain the scope of judicial review. There are now three principal approaches to understanding the constitutional basis of judicial review: upholding ultra vires, focusing on common law principles, or seeking a middle way between these two.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Grounds of Judicial Review

    Two principal actions may be followed in this. They are;


    1. Those which claim that there has been a breach of statutory requirements
    2. Those claiming that a decision has been reached in an unreasonable manner or in
    disregard of the rules of natural justice
    In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of State for Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case),
    the House of Lords 3 principal heads of judicial review.
    1. illegality,
    2. irrationality and
    3. procedural impropriety
    It was accepted that further grounds for review, such as ‘proportionality’ might emerge.
    (Each of the heads will be explained in details as separate topics)

    Traditional Ultra Vires


    Ultra vires refers to action which is outside – or in excess of – powers of decision making bodies.
    The term ultra vires, is too narrow or limited a term to encompass the whole ambit of judicial
    review.
    In R v Hull University Visitor ex parte Page (1993) If the decision maker exercises his
    powers outside the jurisdiction conferred, in a manner which is procedurally irregular or
    is Wednesbury unreasonable, he is acting ultra vires his powers and therefore unlawfully.
    [R v Richmond upon Thames Council ex parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd (1992) and Hazell
    vHammersmith and Fulham Council (1992) illustrates this rule, so we will leave these case.]
    In EN (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KC (South Africa) v
    Same (2009) the court has held that if the statutory power is misunderstood again it is ultra vires.

    Difficulties with the traditional Ultra Vires doctrine


    The ultra vires principle is consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and, to some
    extent, with the concept of the rule of law. The judges cling to the ultra vires doctrine as a means
    of protecting their constitutional position.
    Judicial Review is as good as a law but it is secondary to a legislation. Hence by an Act of
    Parliament, a judicial decision can be overruled. However, the judges does not have the power to
    invalidate an Act of Parliament.
    The judges are cautious about reviewing the exercise of prerogative powers and limit their role in
    relation to parliamentary privileges to ruling on the existence and scope of privilege, to maintain
    a sufficient separation of power.
    However, the doctrine of ultra vires cannot explain sufficiently the judges’ power to rule, as they
    do, on certain aspects of decision making. Therefore; the concept of ultra vires is today regarded
    as an inadequate rationale for judicial review.
    There are now three principal lines of thought regarding the constitutional foundations of judicial
    review.
     The first holds to the ultra vires doctrine.
     The second, and competing, approach focuses on the common law and the principles
    developed by the judges.
     A third approach seeks a middle way through the conflicting claims of the ultra
    vires proponents and the common law advocates.

    You might also like