Evolution of Administrative Law in the United Kingdom
Evolution of Administrative Law in the United Kingdom
Introduction
Administrative Law in the UK governs the powers, duties, and procedures of government agencies and public authorities.
It mainly focuses on judicial review—the courts’ power to oversee decisions made by public bodies.
Unlike the US, the UK has no written constitution, so administrative law has evolved largely through common law principles and statutory developments.
The growth of the welfare state and expanding government functions in the 20th century significantly shaped administrative law.
Historical Evolution and Key Stages
1. Early Foundations: The Rule of Law and Public Law Principles
The foundation rests on the rule of law, as articulated by A.V. Dicey—no one is above the law, and everyone is subject to ordinary courts.
Early administrative law was limited because of parliamentary sovereignty and the reluctance of courts to interfere in executive decisions.
However, courts began to develop principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decisions.
2. Development of Judicial Review
Judicial review emerged as a mechanism to supervise legality, rationality, and procedural fairness.
Key developments include:
Defining grounds for review (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety).
Establishing the procedural safeguards for fair decision-making.
Key UK Cases Shaping Administrative Law
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: Local authority imposed a condition restricting cinema opening hours.
Issue: Whether the decision was lawful or so unreasonable that courts should intervene.
Holding: The court formulated the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test—only decisions so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made them would be quashed.
Significance: Established the irrationality ground of judicial review and set a high threshold for intervention.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case)
Facts: Government banned GCHQ employees from union membership without consultation.
Issue: Whether the decision was justiciable and if natural justice applied.
Holding: The House of Lords held the decision was subject to judicial review despite national security concerns but recognized some matters are non-justiciable.
Significance: Marked the recognition of legitimate expectations and the extension of natural justice to administrative decisions.
3. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts: Government abandoned a compensation scheme after announcing a statutory scheme.
Issue: Whether the Home Secretary was legally obliged to implement the announced scheme.
Holding: The House of Lords held that the government’s failure to honor its announced policy was unlawful.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of legitimate expectation—administrative decisions must be consistent with prior assurances.
4. R (on the application of Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts: Whether the government could trigger Article 50 (Brexit) without parliamentary approval.
Issue: Limits on executive power and parliamentary sovereignty.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled parliamentary authorization was necessary.
Significance: Affirmed the constitutional principle that executive powers are limited by statute and parliamentary sovereignty, emphasizing the rule of law.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Brent LBC (1991)
Facts: Local authority challenged the Secretary of State’s planning decision.
Issue: Whether the decision was lawful and properly reasoned.
Holding: The court emphasized the requirement for decisions to be made following correct procedures and with relevant considerations.
Significance: Reinforced procedural fairness and reasoned decisions as essential in administrative law.
6. R (on the application of Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts: Prisoner challenged cell search policy violating legal professional privilege.
Issue: Whether the policy was proportionate under common law and human rights principles.
Holding: The House of Lords emphasized the importance of proportionality and privacy rights.
Significance: Introduced proportionality as an important principle in judicial review, influenced by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Statutory Developments Influencing Administrative Law
Human Rights Act 1998: Incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, impacting judicial review by requiring compatibility with human rights.
Freedom of Information Act 2000: Increased transparency and accountability of public bodies.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: Reformed administrative tribunals and appeal rights.
Summary of the Evolution
Administrative law in the UK has evolved from limited judicial interference to a mature system protecting legality, rationality, fairness, and human rights.
Key principles:
Rule of Law: All government actions must be lawful.
Judicial Review: Courts can quash unlawful decisions.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Limits courts’ interference with policy.
Legitimate Expectation: Protects fairness based on past assurances.
Proportionality: Balances individual rights against public interest.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: The ultimate source of authority.
RELATED Blog
0 comments