Procedural impropriety as a ground of review
Procedural Impropriety as a Ground of Judicial Review
Meaning of Procedural Impropriety
Procedural impropriety occurs when an administrative decision-maker fails to follow the procedures or principles of natural justice required by law. It is one of the key grounds on which courts can review and invalidate administrative decisions.
Procedural impropriety may include:
Failure to observe natural justice (audi alteram partem — the right to a fair hearing, and nemo judex in causa sua — no one should be a judge in their own case).
Failure to follow statutory procedures or prescribed administrative processes.
Bias or lack of impartiality.
Failure to provide reasons or adequate disclosure.
Denial of an opportunity to be heard.
Importance of Procedural Impropriety in Judicial Review
Ensures fairness and transparency in administrative decisions.
Protects individuals’ fundamental rights.
Enhances public confidence in administrative justice.
Acts as a check on arbitrariness and abuse of power.
🔍 Key Case Laws on Procedural Impropriety
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Citation: [1964] AC 40 (House of Lords)
Facts:
A chief constable was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held:
The dismissal was invalid due to failure to observe natural justice (no hearing given).
Significance:
Landmark case establishing that failure to provide a fair hearing amounts to procedural impropriety.
Courts held administrative decisions void if natural justice is denied.
2. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)
Citation: 143 ER 414
Facts:
An individual’s property was demolished without prior notice.
Held:
Decision was invalid because of lack of hearing.
Significance:
Early and classic articulation of the audi alteram partem rule.
Administrative decisions affecting rights must provide an opportunity to be heard.
3. R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924)
Citation: 1 KB 256
Facts:
A magistrate involved in a case had a personal interest, creating a perception of bias.
Held:
Decision was quashed for bias, violating the rule nemo judex in causa sua.
Significance:
Established the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Bias or the appearance of bias vitiates decisions.
4. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Citation: [1969] 2 AC 147
Facts:
The Foreign Compensation Commission made an error of law when rejecting a claim.
Held:
The decision was null due to error of law and procedural irregularity.
Significance:
Recognized that errors affecting the procedure or legality of decision-making amount to procedural impropriety.
Courts can review decisions even where statute attempts to oust review.
5. Kioa v. West (1985)
Citation: 159 CLR 550 (High Court of Australia)
Facts:
Immigration officials deported a person without informing him of adverse allegations.
Held:
Decision was invalid because of failure to give a fair hearing.
Significance:
Expanded natural justice to include the right to know the case against oneself and respond.
Emphasized procedural fairness in administrative actions affecting rights.
6. Board of Education v. Rice (1911)
Citation: AC 179
Facts:
A teacher was dismissed without explanation.
Held:
Dismissal was invalid due to failure to provide reasons or fair procedure.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of transparency and reasons in administrative decisions.
Grounds for challenging decisions without procedural fairness.
✅ Summary:
Procedural impropriety covers failures in natural justice and statutory procedure.
Key principles include:
Right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
No bias or conflict of interest.
Following prescribed procedures.
Providing reasons and transparency.
Judicial review is a crucial tool to enforce procedural fairness.
Cases like Ridge v. Baldwin and Kioa v. West set foundational standards.
Procedural impropriety ensures decisions are fair, lawful, and legitimate.
RELATED Blog
0 comments