Grounds of judicial review
🧠 What Are Grounds of Judicial Review?
Judicial review allows courts to examine the legality of decisions or actions by public authorities. The courts don’t substitute their own decisions but check if the authority acted within its powers and followed the law.
The classic grounds of judicial review are:
Illegality
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Procedural Impropriety
Proportionality (developing in UK law, especially under human rights cases)
I’ll explain these grounds with 5+ landmark cases that illustrate each principle.
1. Illegality
Definition: The decision-maker must understand and correctly apply the law, and act within the powers granted by legislation (no acting beyond power — ultra vires).
Case: Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts: Anisminic's claim for compensation was rejected by the Commission, which interpreted its powers narrowly. The statute had an ouster clause attempting to exclude judicial review.
Held: The House of Lords held the ouster clause did not protect errors of law from judicial review.
Significance:
Established that any error of law by a public authority makes the decision a nullity.
Courts can review decisions even where the statute tries to prevent it.
Fundamental principle of legality.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Definition: A decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: The council imposed conditions on a cinema licence that forbade children under 15 on Sundays.
Held: The court will only interfere if the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance:
Created the “Wednesbury test” for irrationality.
Sets a high threshold for courts to overturn decisions on this ground.
3. Procedural Impropriety
Definition: The decision-maker must follow fair procedures, including the right to a fair hearing (natural justice) and no bias.
Case: Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to respond.
Held: The dismissal was unlawful because the officer was denied natural justice (right to a fair hearing).
Significance:
Reinforced the importance of fair procedures.
Courts protect rights to hearings and unbiased decision-makers.
4. Proportionality
Definition: The decision must be proportionate to the aim pursued, especially in human rights contexts.
Case: R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts: Prison policy allowed searching of a prisoner’s legal correspondence without his presence.
Held: The search policy violated prisoners' rights and was disproportionate to the aim of security.
Significance:
Developed proportionality as a distinct ground, especially where rights are affected.
More precise than Wednesbury for rights-based claims.
5. Legitimate Expectation
While not traditionally a separate ground, it’s often treated as one related to procedural fairness or substantive fairness.
Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) (1985)
Facts: Government changed employment conditions without consultation.
Held: Employees had a legitimate expectation of consultation before changes.
Significance:
Legitimate expectation protects fairness in administrative decisions.
Grounds judicial review when public authorities break promises or established practices.
6. Error of Fact
In some cases, judicial review is allowed when a decision is based on a wrong or no evidence.
Case: E v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)
Facts: Deportation decision based on incorrect information.
Held: Courts can intervene if the decision-maker relied on incorrect facts.
Significance:
Clarified that errors of fact can ground judicial review where facts are established and essential.
🧾 Summary Table
| Ground | Definition | Leading Case | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Acting outside powers | Anisminic (1969) | Any error of law invalidates decision |
| Irrationality | Unreasonable decisions | Wednesbury (1948) | High threshold for interference |
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure of fair process | Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Right to fair hearing and no bias |
| Proportionality | Fair balance of interests | Daly (2001) | Especially in rights contexts |
| Legitimate Expectation | Fairness in promises | GCHQ (1985) | Protects procedural or substantive fairness |
| Error of Fact | Wrong factual basis | E v Home Dept (2004) | Courts check on factual errors |
🧠 Key Takeaways:
Judicial review ensures that public bodies stay within the law, act reasonably, and follow fair procedures.
The balance of power between courts and public authorities is nuanced—courts avoid overreach but protect legality and rights.
Grounds like illegality and procedural impropriety are well-established; proportionality is growing in importance, especially under human rights law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments