11. Giving Reasons for Decisions

This chapter examines the content and scope of the duty to give reasons, suggesting that giving reasons for decisions should be treated as a central facet of procedural fairness in administrative law. It first differentiates the duty to give reasons from the duty to give notice, the possibility of inferring unreasonableness from an absence of reasons, the proportionality doctrine, and the duty of candour. It then considers why reasons are required and goes on to discuss the duty to give reasons at common law. It also describes statutory duties and other duties to give reasons, paying attention to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, it analyzes the question of whether a duty to give reasons has been discharged, and provides an overview of the remedial consequences of a breach of the duty to give reasons.

19. Ombudsmen

This chapter examines the role of the ombudsmen in the administrative justice system. It first traces the origins of the ‘public sector ombudsmen’, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in the UK. It then considers the need for and the functions of the ombudsmen, along with the place of the ombudsmen in a changing administrative landscape. It also discusses bodies and matters subject to investigation by the Ombudsman based on the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, including ‘maladministration’, and the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate. Finally, the chapter reviews the conduct and consequences of the Ombudsman's investigations, paying attention to judicial review of the ombudsmen's conclusions, and institutional matters pertaining to the ombudsman system.

8. Abuse of Discretion II

This chapter examines grounds of judicial review that are substantive in two senses: it reduces the range of substantive options open to a decision-maker, or it involves judicial examination of the quality of the reasons for the decision itself, rather than the quality of the process adopted by the decision-maker. The chapter first considers the doctrine of reasonableness or rationality in administrative law before discussing the doctrine of proportionality and the notion of judicial deference in relation to variable intensity review. It also explores the role of the proportionality test in English law and the question of whether English courts are heading towards jettisoning the reasonableness doctrine in favour of utilizing proportionality in all relevant cases.

1. Introductory Matters

This introduction provides an overview of administrative law and administrative power in the UK. It begins with a discussion of the ‘red light’ and ‘green light’ theories of administrative law, along with judicial review. In particular, it considers the scope and intensity of judicial review, why judicial review is expanding, and whether (more) judicial review is a good thing. It then examines the debate about the constitutional basis of judicial review, focusing on the ultra vires doctrine and its modified version, and whether judicial review must be related to legislative intention. It also explains administrative power in the modern UK constitution, paying attention to the main features of the devolution systems, the powers and nature of the devolved institutions, the political and legal accountability of devolved administrations, and the powers of the local government.

14. Restriction of Remedies

This chapter considers various factors that may prevent claimants from obtaining relief via judicial review. It first discusses the provisions of the ‘Pre-Action Protocol’ regarding court permission for judicial review before considering the requirement to exhaust alternative remedies. It then reviews the time limits for those who wish to use the judicial review procedure, focusing on the requirements of Senior Courts Act 1981 and Civil Procedure Rules Parts 3 and 54. It also explores questions of ‘prematurity’ and ‘ripeness’, along with the courts' general approach to the exclusion of judicial review and the role of standing, or locus standi, in initiating judicial review proceedings. The chapter concludes with an overview of the application of the ‘no difference’ principle in dealing with restriction of remedies.

13. The Judicial Review Procedure

This chapter examines the judicial review procedure, with particular emphasis on two issues: first, what judicial review procedure which claimants seeking a prerogative remedy are required to use; second, the extent to which a claimant seeking to raise a public law matter may avoid having to use the judicial review procedure by issuing a claim for an injunction or declaration. After providing a background on the origins of today's judicial review procedure, the chapter discusses the nature of the judicial review procedure and the impact of human rights claims on judicial review procedure. It also considers when the judicial review procedure must be used, focusing on procedural exclusivity, waiver of exclusivity, defensive use of public law arguments, and the connection between private law rights and public law.

9. Bias, Impartiality, and Independence

This chapter examines the notions of impartiality (and bias) and independence. It first provides an overview of the scope and rationale of the rule against bias before discussing the connection between impartiality and procedural fairness. It then reviews the ‘automatic disqualification rule’ by which a decision-maker can be disqualified if he/she has a sufficient financial interest in the outcome of the decision-making process. It also explores the apprehension of bias and the ‘fair-minded observer rule’, along with the political dimensions of the rule against bias. Finally, it considers Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in an administrative context and when Article 6(1) applies to administrative decision-making. A number of relevant cases are cited throughout the chapter, including R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.

15. Liability of Public Authorities

This chapter examines the nature and operation of the liability of public authorities, with particular emphasis on the tensions between the equality principle, a concern that authorities ought to be specially protected, and a concern that authorities ought to be subject to wider and more onerous obligations. The chapter first considers the relationship of public authority liability with judicial review and goes on to discuss the law of torts, especially the tort of negligence and what circumstances courts ought to impose negligence liability on public authorities for harm caused through exercises of statutory discretion. It then explores negligence liability in relation to omissions, human rights, and misfeasance in public office. It also reviews damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, contracts, restitution, and state liability in European Union law.

12. Remedies

This chapter examines the remedies that may be granted when administrative action is deemed unlawful. It begins with an overview of the provisions of Senior Courts Act 1981 and goes on to discuss the role of injunctions in public law, the availability of interim injunctions, and the question of whether injunctive relief may issue against the Crown. It then considers the role of declarations in public law, along with relator proceedings brought by the Attorney-General on behalf of a member of the public or an agency in order to obtain an injunction or declaration. In particular, the chapter explores quashing orders, the most commonly sought remedy in judicial review proceedings, as well as prohibiting orders and mandatory orders. A number of relevant cases are cited throughout the chapter, including R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Monsanto plc [1999] QB 1161.

7. Abuse of Discretion I

This chapter examines principles of administrative law which seek to prevent abuse of discretion. It first considers the notion that there is no such thing as an unfettered discretion before discussing two key principles that encourage a mode of administration which is faithful to the legislative scheme set out by Parliament: those which require decision-makers to act only on the basis of factors which are legally relevant, and those which dictate that statutory powers may be used only for the purposes for which they were created. It also explores the propriety of purpose doctrine and the relevancy doctrine, citing a number of relevant cases such as Padfield v. Minister of Agrictulture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.