Judicial Review

What is Judicial Review in Tort Law?

Quick Definition

Judicial review is a public law process through which courts supervise the legality of decisions made by public bodies. It is not a tort, but it often overlaps with tort principles where unlawful administrative action causes harm. The focus is on whether the decision-making process was lawful, fair, and reasonable rather than on compensation.

In Context

Judicial review is used where a public authority has acted beyond its powers, failed to follow proper procedure, or made an irrational decision. A claimant must generally show sufficient interest in the matter and challenge the decision promptly. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case) (1985), the House of Lords confirmed that even prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review, depending on justiciability. Common grounds include illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality, later expanded to include proportionality in human rights cases. Unlike tort claims, judicial review does not primarily aim to compensate the claimant, although remedies such as quashing orders or declarations may indirectly lead to further claims for damages in tort. In practice, it is often used alongside negligence or misfeasance in public office where a claimant seeks both accountability and compensation.

See Also

• Misfeasance in Public Office

• Negligence

• Human Rights Act 1998

Learn More

Explore our Tort Law Notes for deeper case law, examples, and revision tips.