1-20 of 144 Results

  • Keyword: judicial review x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Public Law

19. Judicial Review  

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

Cover Public Law

15. The Effectiveness and Impact of Judicial Review  

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

Cover Public Law

19. Judicial Review 3: Exclusion and Limitation of Judicial Review  

Some of the most contentious debates in recent years have concerned Parliament’s ability to limit or totally prevent the use of judicial review to question not only decisions of specialised bodies but also of the executive. The questions raised go to the heart of the tension between the supremacy of Parliament on the one hand and the need to protect access to justice and the rule of law on the other. This Chapter considers these issues and focuses on attempts by Parliament to prevent the use of judicial review and judicial responses to these. In particular, it considers the famous 1960’s decision in the Anisminic case and the more recent decision in the Privacy International case.

Chapter

Cover Public Law

13. Judicial review: unreasonableness and proportionality  

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal  

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 and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Administrative Law

17. Boundaries of Judicial Review  

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

Cover Wade & Forsyth's Administrative Law

17. Boundaries of Judicial Review  

Sir William Wade, Christopher Forsyth, and Julian Ghosh

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

Cover Public Law

14. Judicial Review—Scope, Procedures, and Remedies  

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

Cover Complete Public Law

20. Judicial Review: Putting It All Together in Problem Answers  

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

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as the Fleet Street Casuals case). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The case concerned whether an interest group formed to protect a recently rediscovered Elizabethan theatre had sufficient interest to bring a judicial review against a decision not to protect the theatre. The case is considered with the Fleet Street Casuals case [1982] AC 617 and Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548 in mind. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Public Law

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals)  

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as the Fleet Street Casuals case). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.