scholarly journals The Unmeritorious ‘Legality’/‘Merits’ Distinction in Singapore Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Joshua Ong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rough Approximation ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

Abstract The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

scholarly journals The Europeanisation of Spanish Administrative Law through the Principle of Legitimate Expectations

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Luis Arroyo Jiménez ◽  
Gabriel Doménech Pascual
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Eu

This article describes the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law as a result of the influence of the EU law general principle of legitimate expectations. It examines, firstly, whether the formal incorporation of the principle of legitimate expectations into national legislation and case law has modified the substance of the latter, and if so, secondly, whether this has led to a weaker or a more robust protection of the legal status quo. To carry out that examination, the article considers the influence of the principle of legitimate expectations in two different areas: in individual administrative decision-making, and in legislative and administrative rulemaking. Our conclusion is that the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law through the principle of legitimate expectations has been variable and ambiguous.

Three Decades of Tension: From the Codification of Migration Decision-Making to an Overarching Framework for Judicial Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-431
Author(s):  
Grant Robert Hooper
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Migration Decision ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Base Level ◽  
Executive Decision Making

Over the last three decades, Australian administrative law decisions about who will be allowed to stay in Australia have led to more interaction and tension between the elected government (Parliament and Ministry) and the judiciary than any other subject matter. This interaction has been intensified by Parliament’s attempts to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to codify judicial review and the procedures to be followed when making decisions under the Act. These amendments were made with the specific aim of minimising, if not practically eliminating, the judiciary’s influence over executive decision-making. However, this outcome has not been achieved. Rather, through a thousand cuts, or more literally cases, the codification efforts of Parliament have been weakened. Instead, the judiciary has put in place an overarching judicial review framework centred on the inherently flexible concept of jurisdictional error. This framework places equal emphasis on both express and implied statutory obligations and procedures. Express procedures have often being interpreted to include judicially created natural justice-like obligations and implied procedures often including other natural justice-like obligations or at least a base level of fairness premised on the constitutionally entrenched premise that the executive cannot decide arbitrarily.

14. Procedural Grounds of Judicial Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Partial Picture ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Do So

This chapter examines the procedural grounds of judicial review. It discusses how the courts have used the procedural fairness doctrine by reviewing a number of leading cases to identify the values that appear to be shaping the content of the law. The analysis focuses on case law drawn from the ‘modern’ (ie post-1960) era, but several seminal decisions from earlier periods are also considered. The concept of procedural fairness has generated a vast body of case law in the modern era and will continue to do so in future. But the law on this point, even when seen in conjunction with the law relating to the traditional substantive grounds on which government action can be held unlawful, offers only a partial picture of the way in which administrative law fits into the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

14. Procedural Grounds of Judicial Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 374-404
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Partial Picture ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Do So

This chapter examines the procedural grounds of judicial review. It discusses how the courts have used the procedural fairness doctrine by reviewing a number of leading cases to identify the values that appear to be shaping the content of the law. The analysis focuses primarily on case law drawn from the ‘modern’ (ie post-1960) era, but several seminal decisions from earlier periods are also considered. The concept of procedural fairness has generated a vast body of case law in the modern era and will continue to do so in future. But the law on this point, even when seen in conjunction with the law relating to the traditional substantive grounds on which government action can be held unlawful, offers only a partial picture of the way in which administrative law fits into the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

scholarly journals Le contrôle judiciaire comme technique de participation des citoyens aux choix énergétiques

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 977-1000
Author(s):  
Denis Lemieux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Subsequent Stage ◽  
Political Decisions ◽  
Energy Exploitation

The purpose of this paper is to show how judicial review has been used in the last ten years as a participatory technique by citizens and groups in the decision making process of administrative and political decisions dealing with energy exploitation and use. In a first part, the author makes the point that judicial review is unadopted to that purpose. A second part reviews the recent case law. That review brings the author to the conclusion that the judicial forum was, by and large, an inappropriate one as far as participation was the avowed goal of plaintiffs and petitioners. But, in the last part of the paper, the author affirms that despite all these short-comings, the use of judicial review was often positive not as a technique of participation but as one which did facilitate participation at a subsequent stage, due to the wide publicity and comments, judicial and extrajudicial, surrounding the proceedings.

Composite Procedures and Judicial Review in the Single Resolution Mechanism: Iccrea Banca

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 109-125
Author(s):  
Menelaos Markakis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Single Supervisory Mechanism ◽  
Single Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
National Measure

Iccrea Banca is a landmark ruling regarding judicial protection in composite decision-making procedures. Its importance extends not only to the Banking Union but also to EU administrative law more broadly. This paper argues that the Court's judgment in Iccrea Banca affirms the recent Berlusconi and Fininvest ruling regarding the Single Supervisory Mechanism, and extends its ratio decidendi to the Single Resolution Mechanism. It further argues that Iccrea Banca leaves open a number of questions, notably as regards the irregularities affecting the national preparatory act or proposal that would be reviewed by the CJEU, and the 'legal fate' of that national measure. Furthermore, we do not know which other composite procedures, whether within or beyond the Banking Union, would come to be decided under the principles established in this case. It is likely that more litigation will follow on these matters, and that future case law will provide much-needed answers to the questions left open in Iccrea Banca and earlier rulings.

The Constitutional Principle of Accountability: A Study of Contemporary South African Case Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuks Okpaluba
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Many

‘Accountability’ is one of the democratic values entrenched in the Constitution of South Africa, 1996. It is a value recognised throughout the Constitution and imposed upon the law-making organs of state, the Executive, the Judiciary and all public functionaries. This constitutional imperative is given pride of place among the other founding values: equality before the law, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. This study therefore sets out to investigate how the courts have grappled with the interpretation and application of the principle of accountability, the starting point being the relationship between accountability and judicial review. Therefore, in the exercise of its judicial review power, a court may enquire whether the failure of a public functionary to comply with a constitutional duty of accountability renders the decision made illegal, irrational or unreasonable. One of the many facets of the principle of accountability upon which this article dwells is to ascertain how the courts have deployed that expression in making the state and its agencies liable for the delictual wrongs committed against an individual in vindication of a breach of the individual’s constitutional right in the course of performing a public duty. Here, accountability and breach of public duty; the liability of the state for detaining illegal immigrants contrary to the prescripts of the law; the vicarious liability of the state for the criminal acts of the police and other law-enforcement officers (as in police rape cases and misuse of official firearms by police officers), and the liability of the state for delictual conduct in the context of public procurement are discussed. Having carefully analysed the available case law, this article concludes that no public functionary can brush aside the duty of accountability wherever it is imposed without being in breach of a vital constitutional mandate. Further, it is the constitutional duty of the courts, when called upon, to declare such act or conduct an infringement of the Constitution.

scholarly journals A tale of two citizens: The Brey-Dano proportionality gap in UK courts and tribunals

2021 ◽  
pp. 138826272110049
Author(s):  
Victoria E. Hooton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Law

The role of proportionality and individual assessments in EU residency and welfare access cases has changed significantly over the course of the last decade. This article demonstrates how a search for certainty and efficiency in this area of EU law has created greater uncertainty, more legal hurdles for citizens, and less consistency in decision-making at the national level. UK case law illustrates the difficulty faced by national authorities when interpreting and applying the rules relating to welfare access and proportionality. Ultimately, the law lacks the consistency and transparency that recent CJEU case law seeks to obtain, raising the question of whether the shift from the Court's previous, more flexible, case-by-case approach was desirable after all.

scholarly journals Executive decision-making in fashion retail: a phenomenological exploration of resources and strategies

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Sponder Testa ◽  
Elena E. Karpova
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Phenomenological Approach ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Business Decision ◽  
Content Type ◽  
External Data ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
Fashion Retail

PurposeDecision-makers must be well-informed to successfully impact the future of the business. The purpose of this study was to explore experiences of US fashion retail executives when making business decisions to understand what resources and strategies are utilized within the decision-making process. Additionally, the role of academic research within executive decision-making process was explored.Design/methodology/approachThis study utilized a phenomenological approach to understand the experiences of fashion retail executives when engaging in business decision-making. Fifteen US fashion retail executives participated in the study. Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews and thematically coded to gain a holistic perspective of the decision-making process within the fashion retail industry.FindingsAs the result of the data analysis and interpretation, three topical areas emerged:: “Incredible Amounts of Information,” “Industry Specific Academic Research” and “Have a Clear Road Map.” The findings suggested that while the facts gleaned from internal and external data are of great importance to fashion professionals, insights gathered from social media are equally influential within the decision-making process. The authors identified five major strategies utilized consistently by fashion retail executives regardless of the type of business they represented: collaboration, adaptability, speed, gut instinct and creativity.Research limitations/implicationsThe results are important to fashion retail companies for improving internal decision-making processes. The identified resources and strategies of the decision-making process can be incorporated into fashion program curricula and considered as learning outcomes when preparing future industry professionals.Originality/valueLimited studies have explored the decision-making process specific to the fashion retail environment, an uncertain and ever-changing industry. Further, the study shed light on the opportunity for academic research use in fashion retail decision-making and contributes to the literature by developing a fashion retail decision-making model.

Proceduralism and Automation

2020 ◽  
pp. 275-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Harlow ◽  
Richard Rawlings
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Paradigm Change ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Impact

In this chapter, we argue that administrative procedure has become a central organising concept for administrative law. Our first theme is the steady proceduralisation of public administration experienced in recent years, in the framework of a relationship between courts and administration which we present as a two-way, non-hierarchical process. We look first at internal drivers to proceduralisation emanating from administration, notably the managerial reforms of the 1980s and the rise of regulation as a standard governance technique. We then turn to the contemporary case law of judicial review, focussing on the judicial response to, and stimulus for, administrative proceduralism. Our second theme is the idea of procedures as a repository for values and of values as an important, though often subliminal, driver of administrative procedure. We look at the potential for exchange as well as dissonance between public administration and administrative law. Our third theme concerns challenges to administrative law from the technological revolution currently under way. The impact of automation on public administration was at first rather modest; today, however, technology is taking great leaps forward—from computerisation to artificial intelligence and beyond. The innovations have so far been welcomed as beneficial—faster and more consistent administration, swifter and less costly courts and tribunals. It is time to recognise that we are facing a paradigm change, in which key values and procedures of administrative law, such as transparency, accountability, individuation, and due process, will need to be supported and sustained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document