Administrative Law: Judicial Review Reviewed

1974 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lord Diplock

We are met here this evening in memory of Stanley de Smith to pay a tribute to his labours in the field of English public law. His name will always be associated with the constitutional law of the British Commonwealth in its decline and the administrative law of England in its renaissance. It was in connection with the first of these topics in the nineteen fifties that I first met him when he was a brilliant young law don at the London School of Economics and I was a fairly senior silk instructed on behalf of the Kabaka in the constitutional dispute about Buganda. The depth of knowledge on constitutional matters which he then displayed encouraged me to seek his help in the last constitutional case in which I was engaged before I went on to the High Court bench. It involved appearing before the Federal Court in Pakistan and, unless my memory plays me false, it was de Smith who drew my attention to opinions given by the Law Officers in the seventeenth century about the government of the Plantations, that supplied the basis for the argument that was ultimately accepted by that court.The rapid constitutional changes which followed on the attainment of independence by former colonial territories have, perhaps, converted into legal history much of de Smith's work in this particular field of public law. So I propose to take as the subject of this memorial lecture that other field of public law which he was to make his own: administrative law and, in particular, judicial review of administrative action.

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Delphine Costa

This chapter describes administrative procedure and judicial review in France. In French public law, no constitutional provision provides for judicial review of administrative measures. Nor is there a convention providing for judicial review of administrative measures. This is only envisaged by the laws and regulations, in particular the Administrative Justice Code and the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. The administrative courts exercise extensive control over the acts or measures of the public administration, including both individual decisions and regulatory acts, but some are nonetheless beyond judicial review. Where an act or measure is contested on procedural grounds, judicial review takes place only under certain conditions: the procedural defect must have deprived the applicant of a guarantee or it must have influenced the meaning of the decision taken. Two types of judicial remedy exist in administrative law: it is therefore up to the applicant to limit their application before the administrative judge.


Author(s):  
Joanna Bell

Abstract The list of recognised grounds of judicial review has remained constant in England and Wales for several decades. Modern administrative law may therefore appear to be characterised by high levels of stability or perhaps stagnancy. The essays in The Frontiers of Public Law are, however, an important reminder of three important sources of dynamism across modern administrative law. First, legislation can change regularly in this field, generating novel legal questions. Secondly, internal administrative practices are not static but evolving, creating questions about the adequacy of existing doctrinal structures. Thirdly, principles can emerge within sub-branches of judicial review, giving rise to questions about whether and how those same principles apply elsewhere. These sources of dynamism make modern administrative law ripe territory for novel and important legal issues.


2002 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-185
Author(s):  
Jason Scott Johnston

In “The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation,” (hereafter referred to as LLAR), John and Rui de Figueiredo make an important contribution to our understanding of how interest groups choose between lobbying and litigation strategies in the regulation game. Their work demonstrates the value of formally modeling the regulation game by distinguishing between lobbying and litigation. Drawing upon my own related work, in this brief comment I will focus upon some of the implications of formal models of lobbying and litigation for our understanding of how regulatory incentives are affected by judicial review and alternative statutory regimes. I hope to atleast suggest that in addition to illuminating many crucial issues in political science—such as the theory of lobbying and theories of political disadvantage—the sort of approach taken by the de Figueiredos has great significance for the analysis of some fundamental issues in administrative law and public law more generally.


Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott

Administrative Law explains the constitutional principles of the subject and their application across the range of twenty-first-century administrative law. The focus on constitutional principles is meant to bring some order to the very diverse topics with which you need to deal if you are to understand this very complex branch of public law. The common law courts, government agencies, and Parliament have developed a wide variety of techniques for controlling the enormously diverse activities of twenty-first-century government. Underlying all that variety is a set of constitutional principles. This book uses the law of judicial review to identify and to explain these principles, and then shows how they ought to be worked out in the private law of tort and contract, in the tribunals system, and in non-judicial techniques such as investigations by ombudsmen, auditors, and other government agencies. The aim is to equip the reader to take a principled approach to the controversial problems of administrative law.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court. This case examined the circumstances under which the Upper Tribunal would be subject to judicial review. It also considers the possible implications of the government’s proposals in response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) (2021), inasmuch as they may impact judicial reviews under the process established by Cart. There is also some discussion of ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ns Pamuji ◽  
M Khoirul Huda

Every citizens have the same right to access the health service in the form of promotive, preventive, curative, and rehabilitative which facilities are held by the government, the local government, and the society including the primary clinic. A specialist doctor in the inpatient primary clinic has atributive, mandatory, and delegative authority based on the education standard, competency, profesional standard, and operational procedure standard. The primary clinic can conduct the mild and moderate surgery with general anesthesia. However, there is a contradiction between two regulations that later limits the authority of the specialist doctor and the anesthesia doctor to conduct the surgery.  A specialist doctor in carrying out their authority should consider the operational standard, informed consent, ethical code, and the hospital by law.  Along with the authority, the doctor also has a huge responsibility to treat the patients based on the procedure both legally and ethically as detemined. The previous regulation, Health Ministry Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia article 9 year 2014 about clinic, has not enacted firmly about the specialist doctor’s authority in the inpatient primary clinic. The specialist doctors have legal responsibility, profesional responsibility, ethical and discipline responsibility, criminal law responsibility, civil law responsibility, and administrative law responsibility Therefore, we recommend to conduct a judicial review on Health Ministry Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia article 9 year 2014 about the specialist doctor’s authority.


2019 ◽  
pp. 141-158
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the concept of judicial review. Judicial review allows a High Court judge to examine the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies carrying out their public functions and enactments where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The defendant must be a public body, the subject matter of a claim must be a public law matter, and the claimant must have the right to claim. This chapter also looks at the basis procedure for judicial review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document