Review of Administrative Actions and Remedies
Review of Administrative Actions and Remedies: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction
The review of administrative actions is a fundamental aspect of administrative law, ensuring that decisions made by public authorities comply with the law, fairness, and reasonableness. When an administrative action is challenged, courts or tribunals examine the lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness of that decision.
Remedies provide the mechanism by which courts address unlawful or unfair administrative actions, restoring justice.
2. Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial review is the primary mechanism for the review of administrative actions and is based on certain established grounds:
Illegality: The authority must act within the powers granted by law (ultra vires).
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to observe procedural rules, including natural justice.
Proportionality (mainly in human rights context): The decision must be proportionate to the legitimate aim.
3. Types of Remedies Available
Certiorari: Quashing an unlawful decision.
Prohibition: Preventing a public authority from acting beyond its powers.
Mandamus: Compelling a public authority to perform a duty.
Declaration: A formal statement on the rights or legal position.
Injunction: Ordering or preventing certain acts.
Damages: Compensation for loss (less common in judicial review).
4. Key Cases Illustrating Review and Remedies
A. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ Case)
Facts:
The government closed GCHQ without consultation citing national security.
Civil Service Unions claimed breach of natural justice and ultra vires.
Issue:
Whether the exercise of prerogative powers was subject to judicial review.
Grounds for review and possible remedies.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that prerogative powers are subject to judicial review.
However, where national security is involved, courts will give considerable deference.
Remedies include quashing unlawful decisions.
Significance:
Established judicial review applies broadly.
Confirmed availability of remedies like certiorari for unlawful actions.
B. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts:
Licensing authority imposed conditions on cinema operation.
The applicant argued the conditions were unreasonable.
Issue:
When should courts interfere with administrative discretion?
Holding:
Introduced the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness: a decision is reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance:
Defined irrationality as a ground for review.
Courts may quash decisions found to be irrational.
C. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Facts:
A promise was made to a disabled person that a care home would be her permanent residence.
The health authority tried to close it.
Issue:
Whether a legitimate expectation arose, giving rise to a duty to act fairly.
Holding:
The Court of Appeal held that legitimate expectations are protected by judicial review.
Breach of such expectations can lead to remedies like quashing or declarations.
Significance:
Expanded grounds of review to include legitimate expectation.
Remedies include mandamus or quashing.
D. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts:
Prisoners claimed a failure to give reasons for parole decisions.
Issue:
Whether there was a duty to give reasons.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that fairness may require giving reasons.
Failure to do so is a procedural impropriety that can be remedied.
Significance:
Confirmed procedural fairness as a ground for review.
Remedies may include quashing decisions or declarations.
E. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
Facts:
The Foreign Compensation Commission misinterpreted the law and refused compensation.
Issue:
Whether an ouster clause barring review excluded judicial review for errors of law.
Holding:
The House of Lords ruled that errors of law made by public bodies are reviewable despite ouster clauses.
The decision was a nullity and could be quashed.
Significance:
Asserted that jurisdictional errors of law invalidate decisions.
Remedies include certiorari to quash decisions.
5. Summary Table of Remedies and Relevant Cases
| Remedy | Purpose | Illustrative Case |
|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | Quash unlawful decisions | Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission |
| Prohibition | Prevent unlawful exercise of power | GCHQ Case |
| Mandamus | Compel public authority to perform duty | Coughlan |
| Declaration | Declare legal rights or status | Doody |
| Injunction | Restrain unlawful acts | Cases involving public nuisance or breach |
| Damages | Compensation (rare in JR) | Not common, usually in tort or contract |
6. Conclusion
The review of administrative actions through judicial review provides vital checks on government power, ensuring legality, fairness, and reasonableness. When a public authority acts unlawfully or unfairly, courts have a range of remedies to correct or prevent injustice.
The cases above illustrate how courts assess administrative decisions and apply remedies to uphold the rule of law in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments