Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
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 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
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 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This case note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. There is also discussion of the deployment of national security arguments to avoid review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
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 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). This case note discusses both the ‘new nomenclature’ (Lord Roskill at 415) of judicial review established by Lord Diplock, and the House of Lords’ conclusion that prerogative powers are, in principle, reviewable by the courts. There is also discussion of the deployment of national security arguments to avoid review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

14. The grounds for judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 309-353
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

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)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Small Businesses ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Self ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Inland Revenue ◽  
National Federation ◽  
Liberal Approach

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 from author Thomas Webb.

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)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Small Businesses ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Self ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Inland Revenue ◽  
National Federation ◽  
Liberal Approach

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 Fleet Street Casuals). 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 from author Thomas Webb.

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)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Small Businesses ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Self ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Inland Revenue ◽  
National Federation ◽  
Liberal Approach

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 Fleet Street Casuals). This case concerns when and how an assessment of whether an applicant seeking to bring a judicial review should occur. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

14. The grounds for judicial review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

4. The Royal Prerogative

2021 ◽  
pp. 76-102
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Rigorous Approach ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the evolving constitutional status of the royal prerogative in the courts during the twentieth century. The discussions cover the relationship between statute, the prerogative, and the rule of law; the traditional perspective on judicial review of prerogative powers and the rejection of that traditional perspective in the House of Lords’ judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ). The chapter continues by analysing the ways in which the new organising principle of ‘justiciability’ which emerged in the GCHQ judgment in the 1980s has since been applied in several leading cases, and suggests that in recent years the courts have adopted an increasingly rigorous approach to the supervision of governmental actions claimed to be taken under prerogative powers.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ Case)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Webb
Keyword(s):  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
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 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, House of Lords (also known as the GCHQ case). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Judicial review where the Attorney General refuses to act: time for a change

Legal Studies ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Hough
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Controlling Factor ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Judicial Scrutiny ◽  
Discretionary Powers ◽  
Public Right

‘Today, therefore, the controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of a prerogative power is subject to judicial review is not its source but its subject matter.’ So uttered Lord Scarman, expressing the view of the majority of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case). The Attorney General, in deciding whether to institute proceedings for the enforcement ofa public right, exercises a power vested in him by virtue of the royal prerogative. This power, it was previously held, was ‘absolute and non-reviewable’. The question now arises as to whether the Attorney General’s discretionary powers are embraced within that category of prerogative powers whose subject matter renders them amenable to judicial review, or whether they remain beyond judicial scrutiny.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document