Comparative study of administrative remedies and judicial review
Comparative Study of Administrative Remedies and Judicial Review
1. Understanding Administrative Remedies
Definition:
Administrative remedies are procedures and mechanisms provided by administrative agencies themselves to resolve disputes, correct errors, or challenge agency actions without immediately resorting to the courts. These remedies typically include:
Internal appeals within the agency.
Requests for reconsideration or rehearing.
Administrative hearings.
Mediation or negotiation.
Purpose:
To allow agencies to correct mistakes internally.
To reduce the burden on courts by resolving issues administratively.
To provide a quicker, specialized resolution.
Key Characteristics:
Usually mandatory before judicial review.
Agencies have expertise to handle certain disputes.
Procedural flexibility and informality compared to courts.
2. Understanding Judicial Review
Definition:
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the actions of administrative agencies to ensure they comply with the law, including constitutional provisions, statutes, and principles of fairness.
Purpose:
To check abuse of power.
To ensure administrative actions are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
To protect individuals from arbitrary or ultra vires acts.
Key Characteristics:
Courts do not substitute their judgment for that of agencies but check for legality and reasonableness.
Usually occurs after exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Grounds include illegality, procedural unfairness, irrationality, and proportionality.
Comparative Table
| Aspect | Administrative Remedies | Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Internal, agency-based procedures | External, court-based oversight |
| Purpose | Correct errors and resolve disputes early | Ensure legality and fairness of administrative acts |
| Timing | Usually prior to judicial review | After administrative remedies are exhausted |
| Expertise | Agency expertise and specialization | Legal expertise and constitutional oversight |
| Formality | Less formal, flexible | Formal court procedures |
| Bindingness | Agency decision-making | Court decisions legally binding |
| Grounds for challenge | Procedural errors, factual disputes | Illegality, irrationality, procedural fairness |
| Scope | Limited to agency jurisdiction | Broad review of administrative legality |
Key Case Laws with Detailed Explanation
1. London and Clydeside Estates Ltd. v. Aberdeen District Council (1980)
Facts:
The council refused planning permission. The applicant exhausted the administrative remedies but sought judicial review claiming the decision was unreasonable.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that the court could intervene if the administrative decision was unreasonable and the applicant had exhausted remedies.
Explanation:
The case clarified that administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial review.
Courts respect agency expertise but can step in if decisions are irrational.
Shows the complementary roles: agencies decide first; courts review if remedies fail.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Facts:
Ridge was dismissed by the police without a fair hearing. He sought judicial review of the dismissal.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that failure to provide a fair hearing violated natural justice, making the dismissal unlawful.
Explanation:
Emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness.
Demonstrates that judicial review can correct unfair administrative decisions.
Often after administrative remedies (like appeal boards) are exhausted or are unavailable.
3. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts:
Anisminic challenged the commission’s decision on compensation under statutory authority.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that errors of law made by administrative bodies make decisions invalid, allowing courts to review and quash decisions despite clauses attempting to oust judicial review.
Explanation:
Shows judicial review’s power to override flawed administrative decisions.
Administrative remedies may be ineffective if the agency commits legal errors.
Judicial review remains a crucial check on agency power.
4. Board of Education v. Rice (1911)
Facts:
The Board of Education refused to consider certain appeals, claiming no jurisdiction.
Holding:
The court held that it could review whether the Board had jurisdiction and whether its decisions were lawful.
Explanation:
Courts maintain a supervisory role over agencies’ jurisdictional limits.
Administrative remedies are subject to judicial review for jurisdictional errors.
5. Dixon v. The Attorney-General for New South Wales (1960)
Facts:
A teacher was dismissed and challenged the decision via administrative remedies and subsequently judicial review.
Holding:
The court emphasized the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, except where remedies are inadequate.
Explanation:
Reinforces the procedural requirement of exhaustion of remedies.
Courts ensure that administrative agencies have the first chance to correct errors.
Summary
Administrative remedies are often a first line of dispute resolution, providing expertise, efficiency, and early correction.
Judicial review acts as a second line safeguard, ensuring agency decisions comply with legal standards.
Courts generally require the exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial review but will intervene if remedies are unavailable or inadequate.
Judicial review focuses on legality, fairness, and reasonableness, whereas administrative remedies handle factual and policy issues.
Both mechanisms complement each other to maintain checks and balances in administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments