Grounds For Judicial Review Flashcards
(21 cards)
There are three grounds for judicial review
CCSU case
- Illegality
- Irrationality
- Procedural impropriety
What is illegality?
When a decision is “ultra vires” meaning beyond powers
Without lawful authority
“McCarthy v Stone”
- acting ultra vires
- where a public body acts in a way that is not legitimised by relevant power/statute
Wrongful delegation
“Vine”
- General rule is Parliament delegates power
- The person whom the power is delegates to, cannot sub-delegate the power to someone else
Exceptions to wrongful delegation
“Carltona”
- Non-delegation doesn’t apply to Government ministers
“S101 LGA”
- Lawful for councils to delegate to committees provided its done under the guidelines
Ferreting of discretion
- Acting under dictation of another “Lavender v Sons”
- public body basing decision on another Minister’s objection - Formulating a general policy as to the exercise of discretion “British Oxygen”
- one must always be willing to listen to anyone with something new to say
Unauthorised purpose
If power is used in a way which is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, it is an improper/unauthorised use of the Act
“Congreve”
Dual purpose
Where decision is based on both proper and improper purpose, court should consider
- Primary purpose “LNWR”
- Did unauthorised purpose materially influence decision? “ILEA”
Considerations
- Taking irrelevant factor into account “Padfield”
2. Ignoring relevant factor “Roberts”
Errors
- In law “Anisminic”
2. Of fact “Khawaja”
Irrationality
Must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it
“Wednesbury”
So outrageous in its defiance and logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it
“CCSU”
Lack of reasons for a decision may point to irrationality
Procedural impropriety
This means doing something improperly
- Statutory procedures
- Bias
- Right to a fair hearing
Statutory procedures
- Courts will consider whether Parliament would have intended consequences of non-compliance
“R v Soneji”
Consider whether
a) wording of statute suggests need for full compliance (shall)
b) there has been failure to substantially comply “Coney”
c) procedural safeguard is an important one
d) claimant has differed substantial prejudice
Mandatory/directory requirements
- If requirement is mandatory, decision will be quashed
“Bradbury” - If requirement is directory, decision will not be quashed
“Coney”
Direct bias
Court will be obliged to quash and then reconsider decision
- Financial/pecuniary gain
“Dimes” - Decision-maker involves in same cause
“Pinochet”
Indirect bias
In order for the decision to be quashed, court must consider the “Porter v Magill” test
- Would a fair-minded & impartial observer conclude that there has been a real possibility of bias
- Whether the bias affected the decision or not is irrelevant, it’s about how decision would look to observer
“Hook”
Right to fair hearing
- Duty on decision-makers to Act in good faith and listen to both sides
“Rice” - Claimants should know case and have right to reply
“Fairmount” - Claimants entitled to fair hearing which is fair and reasonable in all circumstances
“Lloyd v McChahon”
Concept of fairness is flexible and variable according to category of case
“McInnes v Onslow-Fane”
Forfeiture cases
Where claimant is deprived of something he previously enjoyed
Standard of fairness is high
“Ridge v Baldwin”
Legitimate expectation cases
- Procedural, meaning decision-maker has failed to follow normal procedure
“Asif Khan” - Substantive, meaning decision-maker has led someone to believe they will receive a benefit
“Coughlan”
Application cases
Where claimant seeks for the first time, standard of fairness expected is much lower
Limitations to the right to a fair hearing
- No right to seek JR if a decision is preliminary and not final
“Lewis v Heffer” - There is no legal duty for public bodies to give reasons for their decision
“Hasan”
