15. Introduction to judicial review

Public Law Directions ◽

10.1093/he/9780198807315.003.0015 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 339-357

Author(s):

Anne Dennett

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Public Law ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

The Public ◽

Locus Standi ◽

Government Power ◽

Executive Action ◽

And Control ◽

Public Bodies

This chapter looks at the purpose and constitutional significance of judicial review. Where public bodies overreach themselves by acting unlawfully, the judicial review process allows individuals to hold public bodies to account in the courts, ensuring that governmental and public powers are lawfully exercised. This maintains the rule of law by helping to protect the public from the arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of government power. Judicial review is therefore a powerful check and control by the courts on executive action, but it also raises issues of whether the process gives the judiciary too much power over the elected government. There are three preliminary or threshold issues that a claimant needs to satisfy when bringing a judicial review claim. To be amenable to judicial review, the claim must raise a public law matter; it must be justiciable; and the claimant must have standing (locus standi).

Download Full-text

13. The nature of judicial review

Constitutional and Administrative Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780198847120.003.0013 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 277-308

Author(s):

Neil Parpworth

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Public Law ◽

Executive Power ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Private Law ◽

The Public ◽

Procedural Reform ◽

Actual Decision ◽

Public Bodies

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the jurisdiction exists to control the exercise of power by public bodies. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is outlined.

Download Full-text

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0007 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 50-52

Author(s):

Delphine Costa

Keyword(s):

Public Administration ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Public Law ◽

The Public ◽

Administrative Procedure ◽

Judicial Remedy ◽

Individual Decisions ◽

Laws And Regulations ◽

Administrative Justice

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.

Download Full-text

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Essential Cases: Public Law ◽

10.1093/he/9780191868306.003.0027 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas E. Webb

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Expert Knowledge ◽

Public Law ◽

High Court ◽

The Public

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 Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Download Full-text

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)

10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0033 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

A New Perspective on the Public–Private Divide? Justiciability of Government Contracting Decisions Following Ririnui and Problem Gambling

Victoria University of Wellington Law Review ◽

10.26686/vuwlr.v49i1.5314 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Caleb O'Fee

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Problem Gambling ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Public Law ◽

Government Contracting ◽

The Public ◽

Proper Role ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

New Perspective ◽

State Of Affairs

Behind every theory of administrative law lies a theory of the state. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the application of judicial review to government contracting decisions. New Zealand courts have long struggled to adopt a consistent and coherent approach in this area, and two recent decisions of relevance do very little to improve the situation. This article argues that a decision of the Supreme Court in Ririnui significantly broadens the scope of justiciability of government contracting decisions by providing an exception to Mercury Energy. The Court of Appeal's approach in Problem Gambling is more cautious but has nevertheless resulted in a broadening of the range of circumstances where government contracting decisions will be subject to judicial review. Beyond these limited findings the law both in New Zealand and overseas continues to lack consistency and coherence. This article suggests that while this state of affairs is undoubtedly the result of the application of a public law cause of action to a context which sits on the public law–private law divide, the courts should stop relying on an inconsistent doctrine and recognise that cases are being decided on the basis of normative conceptions of the proper role of judicial review in this context.

Download Full-text

Outsourcing to Not-for-Profits: Can Judicial Enforcement of Charity Law Provide Accountability for the Performance of ‘Public’ Functions?

University of New South Wales Law Journal ◽

10.53637/rdab6903 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ian Murray ◽

Murray Wesson

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Public Law ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Front Line ◽

The Public ◽

Time Limits ◽

Government Functions ◽

Public Resources ◽

Legal Accountability ◽

The Public Sphere

Governments increasingly rely on charities to provide services on behalf of government. Decisions on outsourced functions can relate to the distribution of public resources, such as the provision of housing, education or legal assistance. Accordingly, such decisions can be contentious and outsourcing potentially places that contention in the private sphere rather than the public sphere. This article examines the extent to which outsourcing service delivery to charities affects the ability of current or potential service recipients to hold decision-makers accountable. It argues that outsourcing government functions to charities will often place such functions beyond the scope of public law judicial review. However, charity law contains accountability mechanisms that have the potential to fill the gap. These mechanisms are identified and then compared with the availability of judicial review for government decisions by reference to scope, grounds, standing, time limits and remedies. This article finds that in many circumstances there should be no diminution of legal accountability. Nevertheless, charity law is less tested than administrative law, is not as effective in dealing with service decisions made by front line employees and does not as readily guarantee procedural fairness. Balanced against this, charity law may provide more generous time limits and better enable systemic issues to be addressed.

Download Full-text

Crown act of state and detention in Afghanistan

Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly ◽

10.53386/nilq.v71i2.314 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 71 (2) ◽

pp. 109-133

Author(s):

Jane Rooney

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Armed Conflict ◽

Public Law ◽

Private Law ◽

The Public ◽

Human Rights Act ◽

Human Rights Act 1998 ◽

Executive Action ◽

Uk Supreme Court ◽

The Uk

The Serdar Mohammed litigation signalled a decisive change in judicial attitude towards scrutiny of extraterritorial executive action in armed conflict. The most significant indicator of a change in judicial attitude was the reinstatement of the act of state doctrine in the private law claim in tort. Act of state bars tort claims against the Crown when the Crown acts outside of its territory. The UK Supreme Court characterised act of state as a non-justiciability doctrine. The article argues that the UK Supreme Court exercised extreme deference in its adjudication of the act of state in the private law claim. This deference was then mirrored in the reasoning employed in the public law claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, departing from international and domestic standards on detention in armed conflict.

Download Full-text

13. The nature of judicial review

10.1093/he/9780198810704.003.0013 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Neil Parpworth

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Public Law ◽

Executive Power ◽

Decision Making Process ◽

Private Law ◽

The Public ◽

Procedural Reform ◽

Actual Decision

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is considered.

Download Full-text

10. Introduction to administrative lawThe foundations and extent of judicial review

10.1093/he/9780192897251.003.0010 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 142-160

Author(s):

Colin Faragher

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Subject Matter ◽

Public Law ◽

Essential Information ◽

High Court ◽

Court Judge ◽

Public Body ◽

The Subject ◽

The Right ◽

Public Bodies

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.

Download Full-text