JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRIATIVE DECISIONS – A BACKGROUND PAPER
| Date | 01 June 1986 |
| Author | JOHN BOYNTON |
| Published date | 01 June 1986 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1986.tb00612.x |
JUDICIAL
REVIEW
OF
ADMINISTIIIATIVE DECISIONS
-
A BACKGROUND
PAPER
Judicial review is now the normal route for anyone seeking to challenge an administrative
decision, unless there
is
a separate statutory right of appeal as for example
in
town planning
matters. Grounds for challenge have been variously described by the courts but include
(a) that the decision was wrong in law, (b) that it was unreasonable or irrational and
(c) that there was procedural unfairness. Those who seek review must understand that
the court will not substitute its own view for that of the decision taker. The adequacy
of
the remedy of judicial review has been challenged by some on the grounds that leave
to proceed has to
be
sought from the court within three months. There is too the difficulty
in some cases of establishing that the plaintiff has a sufficient interest to sue. Whilst it
is too early to talk of a distinct body of public as opposed to private law, recent decisions
have widened the concept of public law and have interpreted the circumstances in which
a private right may be pursued against a public authority.
Judicial review is a growth business. There are many hundreds
of
applications
waiting for decision. This is not just a reflection
of
the citizen’s willingness to
challenge authority, but also an indication
of
a new trend for one public authority
to challenge the decisions
of
another. Districts seek the review
of
decisions taken
by counties: local authorities challenge government departments or the actions
of
statutory bodies. There is no shortage of takers for the new procedure enshrined
in 1977
in
Order 53 of the Rules
of
the Supreme Court and subsequently in section
31
of
the Supreme Court Act 1981. For recent examples see
Nottingham County
Council
v
Secretary
of
State
for
the Environment (The Times
13 December 1985):
R
v
Secretary
of
State
for
the Environment ex parte Hillingdon
LBC
(The Times
20
Nov 1985):
R
v
Liverpool City Council ex parte Ferguson (The Times
20
Nov
1985) and
R
v
GLC
ex parte City
of
Westminster
QBD
(unreported).
No public service lawyer can ignore the new procedure. He will be concerned
to advise his employer as to the rights of challenge to any exercise of a power
or duty derived from statute or the prerogative; and how his authority may question
administration decisions of other bodies which they consider to have adverse
consequences
for
themselves.
Sir John Boynton was Chief Executive
of
Cheshire County Council from
1974-1979.
Public Administration
Vo. 64
Summer
1986 (147-161)
0
1986
Royal Institute
of
Public Administration
ISSN 0033-3298
$3.00
To continue reading
Request your trial