19. Remedies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the remedies granted by the court. If a claimant successfully establishes that the public authority has acted in contravention of one of the grounds of review, then the court may grant a remedy. The purpose of a remedy is to tell the public authority what it has to do to comply with the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that it obeys the courts’ decision. There are two main types of remedies available in judicial review cases: ordinary remedies (injunction, declaration, and damages) and prerogative remedies (quashing order, prohibiting order, and mandatory order). The chapter also discusses situations that may cause the court to refuse a remedy and the courts’ powers to grant a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998.

19. Remedies

2021 ◽  
pp. 652-679
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the remedies granted by the court. If a claimant successfully establishes that the public authority has acted in contravention of one of the grounds of review, then the court may grant a remedy. The purpose of a remedy is to tell the public authority what it has to do to comply with the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that it obeys the courts’ decision. There are two main types of remedies available in judicial review cases: ordinary remedies (injunction, declaration, and damages) and prerogative remedies (quashing order, prohibiting order, and mandatory order). The chapter also discusses situations that may cause the court to refuse a remedy and the courts’ powers to grant a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), including a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with section 4 HRA 1998.

17. Irrationality and Proportionality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Rights Issue

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review, and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non Human Rights Act judicial review cases but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

14. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The court is tasked with checking the legality of government action, which is mainly done through the process known as judicial review. Judicial review is a special form of court process that calls the executive to account for its exercise of power. This chapter discusses the history of judicial review; the grounds of review; the judicial review of delegated legislation; judicial review and the constitution; the difference between judicial review and appeal; the role of the courts and the Human Rights Act 1998; the judicial review procedure; and the extent to which judicial review can act as a check on executive power.

16. Illegality

2021 ◽  
pp. 517-564
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
Discretionary Powers

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter examines ‘illegality’ as a ground for judicial review. Central to judicial review is the idea of ultra vires, which is the principle that public authorities have to act within their legal powers and that if they act or fail to act consistently with their legal powers, they will be acting unlawfully. Case law on the exercise of discretionary powers by public authorities is discussed in depth. In addition, the public-sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is explained. The concept of jurisdiction and the distinction between error of law and error of fact are also included under this ground of review.

17. Irrationality and Proportionality

2021 ◽  
pp. 565-600
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Rights Issue

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non-Human Rights Act judicial review cases, but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

14. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-478
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The court is tasked with checking the legality of government action, which is mainly done through the process known as judicial review. Judicial review is a special form of court process that calls the executive to account for its exercise of power. This chapter discusses the history of judicial review; the grounds of review; the judicial review of delegated legislation; judicial review and the constitution; the difference between judicial review and appeal; the role of the courts and the Human Rights Act 1998; the judicial review procedure; and the extent to which judicial review can act as a check on executive power.

18. Procedural Impropriety

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectation ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Right ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. A public authority must have the legal power to act; if that power is conferred by statute, it may also specify the procedure that must be used prior to an action or a decision being taken. This is what is known as a ‘statutory procedure’, because it is specified in a statute. The statute may, for example, require the authority to give notice of its intention to take action in a certain way, to consult interested groups, or to tell individuals that they have the right to appeal from an adverse decision. If the authority does not comply, then this is a breach of the statutory procedure and may be reviewed as a procedural impropriety. This chapter discusses the judicial review of procedural impropriety. It covers the rules of natural justice; the right to be heard; legitimate expectation; the detailed requirements of natural justice; the rule against bias; and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Complete Public Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Previous Knowledge ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
Secondary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. Complete Public Law combines clear explanatory text and practical learning features with extracts from a wide range of primary and secondary materials. The book has been structured with the needs of undergraduate courses in mind. Opening with consideration of basic constitutional principles (in which no previous knowledge is assumed), the chapters move on to cover all other essential areas, before closing with consideration of the principles and procedures of judicial review. This edition includes a new chapter on executive accountability through a range of methods including tribunals, inquiries and alternative dispute resolution. The book has now been fully updated to account for the latest developments in constitutional law and politics, including the constitutional pathway to ‘Brexit’.

Complete Public Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Previous Knowledge ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
Secondary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. Complete Public Law combines clear explanatory text and practical learning features with extracts from a wide range of primary and secondary materials. The book has been structured with the needs of undergraduate courses in mind. Opening with consideration of basic constitutional principles (in which no previous knowledge is assumed), the chapters move on to cover all other essential areas, before closing with consideration of the principles and procedures of judicial review. This edition includes substantial updates to address the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the constitutional implications these new arrangements have, including in the context of devolution.

20. Judicial Review: Putting It All Together in Problem Answers

2021 ◽  
pp. 680-692
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Other ◽  
Final Assessment ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials ◽  
Legal Opinion

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter ties together the loose strands of judicial review to provide a checklist of issues that must be considered in order to diagnose a judicial review problem and to provide a legal opinion for clients. The following questions are addressed: What are judicial review problem questions designed to test? How does one approach a judicial review problem question? How does one approach whether the body may be judicially reviewed? How does one approach whether the client has standing or may intervene in an action? How does one approach whether the other preconditions are met? How does one approach the grounds for review? How does one deal with issues of remedy? How does one provide a final assessment to the client?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document