Judicial review of administrative decisions
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: Overview
Judicial review is a fundamental mechanism by which courts oversee and control administrative actions to ensure they comply with the law, uphold fairness, and protect individual rights. It acts as a check on executive or administrative authority by:
Ensuring decisions are lawful and within the powers granted.
Ensuring decisions are reasonable and not arbitrary.
Protecting procedural fairness and natural justice.
Upholding human rights and constitutional guarantees.
Grounds of Judicial Review
Courts typically review administrative decisions based on the following grounds:
Illegality – The decision-maker must act within the scope of authority.
Irrationality (Unreasonableness) – The decision must be reasonable (Wednesbury test).
Procedural Impropriety – Fair procedures must be followed.
Proportionality – Especially in human rights contexts, decisions must be proportionate.
Error of Fact – Decisions must be based on correct and relevant facts.
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition restricting cinema opening hours, which the cinema company challenged.
Issue: Whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed it.
Decision: The court held that a decision could be quashed if it was "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it."
Significance: Established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test, a cornerstone of judicial review assessing irrationality.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994) (UK)
Facts: Prisoners challenged the Home Secretary’s refusal to give reasons for minimum terms in their sentences.
Issue: Whether the failure to provide reasons violated principles of fairness.
Decision: The court held that fairness often requires the decision-maker to give reasons for decisions affecting rights.
Significance: Clarified that procedural fairness requires transparency and reasons in administrative decisions affecting rights.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case) (UK)
Facts: Employees at GCHQ challenged the government's decision to ban trade union membership citing national security.
Issue: Whether the decision was subject to judicial review despite being a prerogative power.
Decision: The court held that all exercises of power, including prerogative powers, are subject to judicial review.
Significance: Established that scope of judicial review includes prerogative powers, and set out the grounds of review including illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
4. Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (2013) (UK)
Facts: Bank Mellat challenged sanctions imposed by the UK government restricting its business due to alleged links to Iran.
Issue: Whether the sanctions were lawful and proportionate.
Decision: The court ruled the government failed to provide sufficient reasons and the measures were disproportionate.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of proportionality in judicial review, especially in human rights contexts.
5. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) (USA)
Facts: The Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a statute was challenged.
Issue: Whether courts should defer to administrative agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Decision: The US Supreme Court ruled that courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations when statutes are ambiguous ("Chevron deference").
Significance: Introduced the principle of judicial deference to administrative expertise in statutory interpretation, balanced by reasonableness.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury | 1948 | UK | Test of irrationality in administrative decisions |
| R v Home Dept ex parte Doody | 1994 | UK | Procedural fairness requires giving reasons |
| CCSU v Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ) | 1985 | UK | Judicial review applies to prerogative powers |
| Bank Mellat v HM Treasury | 2013 | UK | Proportionality in judicial review |
| Chevron U.S.A. v NRDC | 1984 | USA | Judicial deference to agency statutory interpretation |
Additional Notes
Judicial review balances accountability with respect for administrative expertise.
In some jurisdictions, the concept of proportionality has gained prominence, especially under human rights law.
Judicial review does not substitute court judgment for administrative discretion but ensures decisions are lawful, fair, and reasonable.
Procedural safeguards such as right to be heard and transparency are integral.
Courts increasingly scrutinize impact on fundamental rights when reviewing administrative decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments