Illegality as a ground of judicial review
What is Illegality as a Ground of Judicial Review?
Illegality is one of the primary grounds on which courts review administrative decisions. It occurs when a public authority or decision-maker acts beyond the powers granted to them by law (ultra vires) or fails to comply with the relevant legal provisions. Essentially, the decision or action is unlawful because:
The authority acted outside the scope of their statutory powers.
The decision was made without regard to relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant ones.
The decision-maker misunderstood or misapplied the law.
The procedure required by law was not followed.
Courts intervene to ensure that public authorities act within the bounds of their legal authority, preserving the rule of law and preventing abuse of power.
Detailed Explanation of Case Law on Illegality
1. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]
Facts:
Anisminic applied for compensation from a government commission. The Foreign Compensation Commission rejected their claim, stating that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. The Commission’s decision was based on a statutory clause which attempted to exclude judicial review of its decisions.
Legal Issue:
Could the court review the decision despite the statutory provision excluding judicial review?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the statutory clause did not prevent the courts from reviewing decisions where the decision-maker made an error of law. The court emphasized that any error of law made by a public body renders the decision a nullity (void) and is therefore reviewable, regardless of any exclusion clause.
Significance:
This case is fundamental in judicial review law as it established that errors of law made by a public authority are always reviewable, and that the courts will not allow bodies to escape review by putting in exclusion clauses.
2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995]
Facts:
The Home Secretary decided not to implement a compensation scheme for firefighters as required by statute but introduced a different scheme instead.
Legal Issue:
Was the Home Secretary’s refusal to implement the statutory scheme lawful?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the Home Secretary acted illegally by refusing to implement the statutory scheme. The decision was ultra vires because the Secretary of State did not have discretion to ignore the statutory duty.
Significance:
This case confirmed that public authorities must comply strictly with statutory duties and cannot circumvent or frustrate them by acting inconsistently with the statute.
3. R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995]
Facts:
Somerset County Council banned deer hunting on its land, citing moral reasons.
Legal Issue:
Was the Council’s decision lawful, or was it an improper exercise of power?
Judgment:
The court held that the Council had acted illegally because it took into account irrelevant considerations (moral objections) rather than focusing on relevant legal or policy considerations.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that illegality can arise not only when acting beyond power but also when decision-makers take irrelevant considerations or ignore relevant ones.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (The GCHQ Case) [1985]
Facts:
The government decided to ban trade union membership at GCHQ without consulting the unions, citing national security.
Legal Issue:
Was the government's decision lawful despite the absence of consultation?
Judgment:
The House of Lords recognized that the prerogative powers are subject to judicial review, but in this case, the government’s decision was lawful due to national security concerns, which was a relevant consideration.
Significance:
This case clarified the limits of judicial review and confirmed that illegality occurs when decision-makers fail to consider relevant factors or act beyond their powers, but also acknowledged the balancing of interests in some situations.
5. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968]
Facts:
The Minister had discretion to refer complaints to a committee but refused to do so, allegedly because the complaints were politically sensitive.
Legal Issue:
Could the Minister refuse to exercise his discretion in a way that frustrated the purpose of the legislation?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the Minister acted illegally by refusing to exercise his discretion because the refusal frustrated the policy and purpose of the Act.
Significance:
This case highlights that discretion must be exercised to promote the statute's purpose, and failure to do so amounts to illegality.
Summary
Illegality occurs when a decision-maker exceeds their legal powers, misconstrues the law, or takes irrelevant factors into account.
Courts can intervene to nullify such decisions.
The cases above are cornerstones that show how the courts approach illegality in different contexts—whether statutory interpretation, discretion, relevant/irrelevant considerations, or procedural compliance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments