1-7 of 7 Results

  • Keyword: procedural impropriety x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law

10. Judicial Review: The Grounds  

This chapter introduces the nature and constitutional role of judicial review. It then examines the various grounds of review, which have been placed in three classes: illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality. The chapter also discusses the substantive aspect of legitimate expectations and the relationship between irrationality and proportionality in pure domestic law.

Chapter

Cover Public Law

18. Judicial Review 2: The Grounds of Judicial Review  

This chapter considers the grounds that have been and are being developed by the courts on which judicial review may be claimed. As well as the three established heads of judicial review presented by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case—illegality, procedural impropriety (including procedural fairness) and irrationality (or Wednesbury unreasonableness)—the chapter considers proportionality, procedural and substantive legitimate expectations, and judicial responses to the argument that those exercising public functions must act consistently and with substantive fairness.

Chapter

Cover Public Law

14. Judicial review: procedural impropriety  

This chapter explores procedural impropriety, the final of the three grounds for judicial review outlined by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. Procedural impropriety has the following elements. The first is a failure to comply with any procedural requirements set out in statute. Secondly, there is a broader heading of failing to act ‘fairly’, the core of which are the rules of natural justice. These rules can be summarized as the right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing. However, a clear understanding of procedural impropriety, and in particular the idea of fairness, still remains elusive.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This case note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. There is also discussion of the deployment of national security arguments to avoid review. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This case note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. There is also discussion of the deployment of national security arguments to avoid review. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Public Law Directions

16. Judicial review: grounds and remedies  

This chapter assesses judicial review and the rule of law, the three traditional grounds of judicial review, proportionality, the modern approach to judicial review, and remedies. Judicial review is the rule of law in action. Through judicial review, the courts place constraints on executive power by upholding and projecting rule of law principles on to executive actions. Indeed, it ensures that administrative decisions are taken rationally, in accordance with a fair procedure, and within the powers conferred by Parliament. As such, the traditional judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety are applied flexibly to protect individuals against the unreasonable, arbitrary, procedurally unfair, or unlawful use of power. Judicial review has unique remedies known as prerogative orders which comprise mandatory orders, prohibiting orders, and quashing orders.

Chapter

Cover Public Law Concentrate

13. Grounds for judicial reviewProcedural impropriety, natural justice, and legitimate expectation  

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include procedural impropriety, which means breach of the rules of natural justice, and failure to comply with statutory procedural requirements. This chapter looks at the definitional elements of the rules of natural justice, whether the rules of natural justice apply in principle, the extent to which the rules of natural justice apply, disciplinary hearings, licensing cases, pecuniary and personal bias, whether or not a fair trial has taken place, and the right to be given reasons for a decision. This chapter also considers legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review.