This chapter looks at judicial review. It considers its recent history, the constitutional foundations for judicial review, and some key issues relating to the practical use and effects of judicial review. It also surveys the grounds of judicial review, and examines what has happened when government and Parliament have attempted to oust judicial review.
Chapter
This chapter examines the effectiveness and impact of judicial review in terms of the accessibility of judicial review, the competence and capacity of the courts to review administrative action, and the impact of judicial review on government. Access to judicial review is constrained in various ways. Legal costs, restrictions on legal aid, uneven access to legal advice and services, the variable operation by the court of the permission to proceed requirement, and delays within the court can limit the accessibility and effectiveness of the judicial review procedure.
Chapter
This chapter examines the effectiveness and impact of judicial review in terms of the accessibility of judicial review, the competence and capacity of the courts to review administrative action, and the impact of judicial review on government. Access to judicial review is constrained in various ways. Legal costs, restrictions on legal aid, uneven access to legal advice and services, the variable operation by the court of the permission to proceed requirement, and delays within the court can all limit the accessibility and effectiveness of the judicial review procedure.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal. This case note considers the concept of unreasonableness as articulated in Wednesbury and reflects on its relationship to that of proportionality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights. This case examined the now-defunct provisions against homosexuality in the British military, and how using either unreasonableness or proportionality produced different outcomes. It also considers the contribution which a rights-based approach to legal questions, drawing on proportionality, can make to the development of law and policy. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
This chapter explores irrationality, the second ground for judicial review identified by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. It examines the meaning of this principle, its foundation upon the test of unreasonableness, and the approach that the courts have adopted since that case. Irrationality, and the notion of unreasonableness upon which it is based, is a particularly vague and ambiguous term, with a range of possible interpretations and meanings. This has meant that the courts have often considered judicial review claims, brought on the basis of irrationality, with varying degrees of caution, often employing the necessary tests with notable stringency. In part as a result of this, and in part also due to the increasing influence of European legal practices on the UK system, the test of proportionality has developed as a substantive ground for judicial review, often overlapping and sometimes conflicting with application of the irrationality doctrine.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights. This case examined the now-defunct provisions against homosexuality in the British military, and how using either unreasonabless or proportionality produced different outcomes. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal. This case note considers the concept of unreasonableness as articulated in Wednesbury, and reflects on its relationship to that of proportionality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Sir William Wade and Christopher Forsyth
This chapter discusses the scope of judicial review. Judicial review is a procedure for obtaining the remedies specified in the Senior Courts Act 1981, namely the quashing order, the prohibiting order, and the mandatory order and declaration and injunction. The scope of judicial review, therefore, is the same as the scope of these remedies. Their boundaries, as set out already, are fairly clear, but in the non-statutory area they are uncertain.
Chapter
This chapter explores irrationality, the second ground for judicial review identified by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. It examines the meaning of this principle, its foundation upon the test of unreasonableness, and the approach that the courts have adopted since that case. Irrationality, and the notion of unreasonableness upon which it is based, is a particularly vague and ambiguous term, with a range of possible interpretations and meanings. This has meant that the courts have often considered judicial review claims, brought on the basis of irrationality, with varying degrees of caution, often employing the necessary tests with notable stringency. In part as a result of this, and in part also due to the increasing influence of European legal practices on the UK system, the test of proportionality has developed as a substantive ground for judicial review, often overlapping and sometimes conflicting with application of the irrationality doctrine.
Chapter
Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter ties together the loose strands of judicial review to provide a checklist of issues that must be considered in order to diagnose a judicial review problem and to provide a legal opinion for clients. The following questions are addressed: What are judicial review problem questions designed to test? How does one approach a judicial review problem question? How does one approach whether the body may be judicially reviewed? How does one approach whether the client has standing or may intervene in an action? How does one approach whether the other preconditions are met? How does one approach the grounds for review? How does one deal with issues of remedy? How does one provide a final assessment to the client?
Chapter
This chapter addresses issues that must be confronted by litigants who propose to launch judicial review proceedings, and by courts dealing with such claims. First, it considers what sort of decisions can be judicially reviewed. Second, it examines the procedure under which courts subject decisions to judicial review. Third, it looks at the remedies that courts may issue in judicial review proceedings.
Chapter
This chapter addresses issues that must be confronted by litigants who propose to launch judicial review proceedings, and by courts dealing with such claims. First, it considers what sort of decisions can be judicially reviewed. Second, it examines the procedure under which courts subject decisions to judicial review. Third, it looks at the remedies that courts may issue in judicial review proceedings.
Chapter
Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter ties together the loose strands of judicial review to provide a checklist of issues that must be considered in order to diagnose a judicial review problem and to provide a legal opinion for clients. The following questions are addressed: What are judicial review problem questions designed to test? How does one approach a judicial review problem question? How does one approach whether the body may be judicially reviewed? How does one approach whether the client has standing or may intervene in an action? How does one approach whether the other preconditions are met? How does one approach the grounds for review? How does one deal with issues of remedy? How does one provide a final assessment to the client?
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights. This case examined the now-defunct provisions against gay people serving in the British military, and how using either unreasonableness or proportionality produced different outcomes. It also considers the contribution which a rights-based approach to legal questions, drawing on proportionality, can make to the development of law and policy. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal. This case note considers the concept of unreasonableness as articulated in Wednesbury and reflects on its relationship to that of proportionality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Mark Elliott and Jason Varuhas
This chapter examines the judicial review procedure, with particular emphasis on two issues: first, what judicial review procedure which claimants seeking a prerogative remedy are required to use; second, the extent to which a claimant seeking to raise a public law matter may avoid having to use the judicial review procedure by issuing a claim for an injunction or declaration. After providing a background on the origins of today's judicial review procedure, the chapter discusses the nature of the judicial review procedure and the impact of human rights claims on judicial review procedure. It also considers when the judicial review procedure must be used, focusing on procedural exclusivity, waiver of exclusivity, defensive use of public law arguments, and the connection between private law rights and public law.
