Case law on judicial control of administration
Judicial Control of Administration
What is Judicial Control of Administration?
Judicial control of administration refers to the power of courts to review and supervise administrative actions and decisions of public authorities. This ensures that administrative authorities act within the law, respect procedural fairness, do not abuse their discretion, and uphold constitutional rights.
Courts do not substitute their judgment for administrative decisions but ensure legality, reasonableness, and fairness.
Grounds of Judicial Review
Courts typically examine administrative actions on these grounds:
Illegality: Acting without legal authority or beyond powers (ultra vires).
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): Decisions so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make them.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedure or natural justice.
Proportionality: Whether the action is proportionate to the objective.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Judicial Control of Administration
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition that no children under 15 could be admitted to a cinema on Sundays. The cinema challenged this as unreasonable.
Held: The court held that a decision is reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it — now called Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Significance: Established the standard for irrationality in judicial review, limiting courts to checking if the decision was within a range of reasonable options, not substituting their own views.
2. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, which argued that an ouster clause excluded judicial review.
Held: The House of Lords held that any error of law made by a public authority nullifies the decision, and ouster clauses cannot exclude review of jurisdictional errors.
Significance: Significantly expanded judicial review by confirming courts can review decisions for errors of law even when legislation attempts to limit it.
3. Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40 (UK)
Facts: A Chief Constable was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held: The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unlawful due to breach of natural justice (procedural fairness).
Significance: Reinforced the principle that administrative decisions affecting rights require a fair hearing.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985) AC 374 (UK)
Facts: The UK government banned GCHQ employees from union membership without consultation, citing national security.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that the exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review except where national security is involved.
Significance: Confirmed that even government prerogative powers are reviewable on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural fairness.
5. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (for example)
Note: This case is important enough to be mentioned again to reinforce irrationality standards.
6. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (Australia)
Facts: The Australian government refused to grant a visa renewal to Mr. Kioa without allowing him to respond to adverse material.
Held: The High Court ruled that procedural fairness applied, requiring affected individuals to be heard before decisions affecting their rights.
Significance: Cemented natural justice principles in administrative decision-making in Australia.
7. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 (Australia)
Facts: The Minister did not consider Australia’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child when making a deportation decision.
Held: The High Court held that ratified international treaties can create a legitimate expectation that administrative decision-makers will follow those principles.
Significance: Established that courts can review administrative decisions for failure to observe legitimate expectations.
8. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) 2 AC 513 (UK)
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to implement a compensation scheme as promised in legislation.
Held: The House of Lords ruled the failure to implement the scheme was unlawful because it frustrated a statutory purpose.
Significance: Demonstrates courts’ power to enforce legitimate expectations and statutory obligations.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Jurisdiction | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | Irrationality standard in judicial review | UK | 1948 |
| Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission | Jurisdictional error review and ouster clauses | UK | 1969 |
| Ridge v Baldwin | Procedural fairness (natural justice) | UK | 1964 |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) | Reviewability of prerogative powers | UK | 1985 |
| Kioa v West | Procedural fairness in administrative decisions | Australia | 1985 |
| Minister for Immigration v Teoh | Legitimate expectation from international treaties | Australia | 1995 |
| R v Secretary of State, ex parte Fire Brigades Union | Enforcement of statutory obligations and legitimate expectations | UK | 1995 |
Conclusion
Judicial control of administration is a crucial mechanism to ensure that administrative bodies and public officials act within the law and adhere to principles of fairness and reasonableness. The case laws above illustrate that courts intervene when:
Powers are exceeded or misused (ultra vires).
Decisions are irrational or arbitrary.
Procedural fairness is denied.
Legitimate expectations are breached.
Statutory duties are ignored.
This framework helps maintain the rule of law and protects citizens against abuse of administrative power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments