Judicial Review Flashcards
Judicial review statute is
S.31 of the Senior courts act 1981
Pt 54,of the civil procedure rules
What must be considered before judicial review can proceed
Public body Public law- Standing Ouster clauses Time Justicibility Leave to apply
Public body
Claim must be against a public body or hybrid authority Beer v Hampshire farmers market Fulham O'reilly Datafin
Public law
Has to be regarding a law that affects the public in general
Datafin
Standing
The applicant has to have sufficient interest / locus standi. Is review in the interests of the rule of law
Greenpeace
Ouster clauses
Full ouster try to prevent decision being challenged not liked by courts preventing executive being held to account - anisminic
Partial ouster ok - ostler on time limit
Time
S.31 Senior courts act 1981 and p 54 cpr set time rules as usually 3months - in any case must be brought without undue delay - hardy
Justicibility
Not for courts to decide and parliament must make decision for example national security GCHQ case
What is judicial review?
What does it review?
Protect individual by controlling use of executive power
Only review decisions of public law
Review administrative acts -action decision or omission
Cannot change decision-breach separation of powers and rule of law
Cannot strike out act -as breach of parliamentary supremacy
Not an appeal must be appealed if poss first, review of process
Claims to queens bench division of high court and assigned to administrative court
Leave to apply
Permission required from administrative court of the high court to apply for jr. Judge assess facts and decide if in the interests of public good
Grounds for judicial review
Who / what
Set out by Lord diplock in gchq case being
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural impropriety
Illegality is
Ultra vires- beyond powers Error of law - misinterpreting legislation Jurisdictional error of fact Unauthorised delegation Acting under the direction of another Fettering discretion Unauthorised purpose Irrelevant or relevant considerations Breach of human rights
Ultra vires
Public authorities must not exceed their jurisdiction - McCarthy and Stone
Error of law
Error made by public body in interpreting law - anisminic
Jurisdictional error of fact
Public body make factual error leading to exceeding powers- Kawaja.
Unauthorised delegation
Generally body awarded power has no implied power to sub delegate
Exception minister delegates to civil servant
Barnard
Exception turner
Acting under the direction of another
Decision maker hampers his discretion if acts under dictation of another where he formulates policy based on another’s policy-lavender
Fettering discretion
Courts will assume that Parliament intended authority to retain discretion rather than restricting it by rules/agreements. So each case can be looked at individually - British oxygen
Unauthorised purpose
JR granted if court considers decisions not based on relevant purpose or improper purpose- Roberts v hopwood.
Irrelevant or relevant considerations
A body must not be influenced by irrelevant considerations. At the same time it must take relevant considerations in to account - dual purchase ok LNWR- not material influence ILEA
Breach of human rights
S6 of the HRA 1998 makes it unlawful for public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right
Irrationality =
In defiance of logic
So unreasonable no reasonable body could come to decisions-Lord Greene in Wednesbury.
So outrageous in de finance of logic or accepted moral standard no sensible person could have arrived at it - CCSU
Procedural impropriety is
Procedural ultra vires Breach of natural justice - fairness Duty to give reasons The rule against bias Article 6 ECHR Legitimate expectations
Procedural ultra vires
Not following procedure as laid down in statute
R v sonejii
