Judicial Review in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 23 May 2001

    First, the doctrine of proportionality may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions. Secondly, the proportionality test may go further than the traditional grounds of review inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations.

  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
    • House of Lords
    • 22 November 1984

    By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.

  • Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans
    • House of Lords
    • 22 July 1982

    I turn secondly to the proper purpose of the remedy of judicial review, what it is and what it is not. His was a dissenting judgment but the dissent was not concerned with this point. Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.

  • Ex parte Preston (pet. all.)
    • House of Lords
    • 25 April 1985

    Judicial review is available where a decision-making authority exceeds its powers, commits an error of law, commits a breach of natural justice, reaches a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached, or abuses its powers.

    My fourth proposition is that a remedy by way of judicial review is not to be made available where an alternative remedy exists. Judicial review is a collateral challenge: it is not an appeal. Where Parliament has provided by statute appeal procedures, as in the taxing statutes, it will only be very rarely that the courts will allow the collateral process of judicial review to be used to attack an appealable decision.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody ; R v Same, ex parte Pierson ; R v Same, ex parte Smart ; R v Same, ex parte Pegg
    • House of Lords
    • 24 June 1993

    Fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on his own behalf either before the decision is taken with a view to producing a favourable result: or after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification; or both.

  • Sharma v Brown-Antoine and Others
    • Privy Council
    • 30 November 2006

    (4) The ordinary rule now is that the court will refuse leave to claim judicial review unless satisfied that there is an arguable ground for judicial review having a realistic prospect of success and not subject to a discretionary bar such as delay or an alternative remedy: R v Legal Aid Board, Ex p Hughes (1992) 5 Admin LR 623, 628; Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 4th ed (2004), p 426. But arguability cannot be judged without reference to the nature and gravity of the issue to be argued.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • The Theoretical Controversy Concerning Judicial Review
    • No. 64-3, May 2001
    • The Modern Law Review
    Book reviewed in this article: Christopher Forsyth (ed), Judicial Review and the Constitution
  • The Legislative Design of Judicial Review
    • No. 12-3, July 2000
    • Journal of Theoretical Politics
    Judicial review of agency decisions clearly affects policy outcomes, both because the courts can overrule an agency's decision and because the threat of judicial review can affect the agency's choi...
    • No. 1-1, January 1992
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
    • 113-115
    In recent years there has been a series of decisions considering the extent to which the self‐regidatory organisations (SROs) are amenable to judicial review. This briefing surveys those decision a...
  • The welfare effects of minority-protective judicial review
    • No. 27-4, October 2015
    • Journal of Theoretical Politics
    Constitutional theorists usually assume that minority-protective judicial review leads to outcomes more favorable to the protected minority and less favorable to the majority. Our analysis highligh...
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT