Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Judicial review is the procedure by which the High Court supervises the exercise of powers by public bodies. It ensures that decisions are taken lawfully, fairly, and rationally. Judicial review does not provide an appeal on the merits but examines the legality of the decision-making process. It is governed by Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Senior Courts Act 1981. Judicial review is a vital mechanism for holding public bodies accountable and protecting individuals from abuse of power.

The Grounds of Review

The classic formulation of the grounds for judicial review is found in Lord Diplock’s speech in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). Illegality arises where the decision-maker misinterprets the law or acts beyond the powers conferred. Irrationality (or Wednesbury unreasonableness) applies where a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. Procedural impropriety covers failures to observe statutory procedural requirements or common law rules of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.

The Procedural Requirements

Judicial review proceedings commence with an application for permission to apply for judicial review under CPR 54.4. The claimant must have a sufficient interest in the matter. The claim must be filed promptly and in any event within three months of the decision. The permission stage filters out unmeritorious claims, ensuring that only arguable cases proceed to a full hearing. If permission is granted, the substantive hearing proceeds with evidence and submissions.

Remedies

The court has discretion to grant various remedies. A quashing order sets aside an unlawful decision, requiring the decision-maker to reconsider. A prohibiting order restrains a public body from acting unlawfully. A mandatory order compels a public body to perform its duty. Declarations and injunctions are also available. Damages may be awarded in judicial review only where the claimant could have claimed them in a private law action.

The Grounds of Review — Detailed Development

The illegality ground encompasses various forms of legal error. A decision-maker who misinterprets the law, acts without legal authority, or fails to have regard to relevant considerations acts illegally. The irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness test from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) provides a high threshold: a decision is irrational only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. The proportionality ground, developed in human rights cases, provides a more intensive standard requiring the court to balance the rights of the individual against the public interest. The procedural impropriety ground covers failures of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua). The legitimate expectation doctrine protects persons who have received a clear promise or established practice from a public body, requiring the body to act consistently with that expectation unless an overriding public interest justifies departure.

Standing and Procedure

The sufficient interest test under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 governs standing. The court determines standing flexibly, considering the nature of the claim and the claimant’s connection to the challenged decision. Pressure groups and public interest organisations may have standing where they represent affected interests or bring matters of genuine public concern. The permission stage requires the claimant to demonstrate an arguable ground for review. The court may refuse permission where the claim is hopeless, where the claimant has suffered no substantial prejudice, or where alternative remedies are available. The procedure is designed to filter out unmeritorious claims and ensure efficient use of court resources. If permission is granted, the substantive hearing proceeds on evidence and submissions, with the defendant public body required to justify the lawfulness of its decision. The court may also grant protective costs orders in public interest cases to limit the claimant’s potential costs exposure.

Scope and Limitations

Judicial review is available only for decisions of a public law character — decisions made by public bodies exercising statutory or prerogative powers. Purely private law matters must be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings. Certain matters are non-justiciable, including exercises of the royal prerogative in areas such as treaty-making, the dissolution of Parliament, and the grant of honours. The Human Rights Act 1998 enlarged the scope of review by requiring courts to assess whether decisions are compatible with Convention rights. The courts have developed proportionality review as a more intensive standard in human rights cases, requiring courts to examine the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest rather than applying the less demanding Wednesbury unreasonableness test. Judicial review has become an increasingly important mechanism for holding public bodies to account, including in immigration, planning, social security, and regulatory decisions.