GDL Law Notes > Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law GDL Law Notes > GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes

Judicial Review Illegality Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 7 page long Judicial Review Illegality notes, which we sell as part of the GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law in 2017 that contains (approximately) 331 pages of notes across 29 different documents.

Learn more about our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes

The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.

Judicial Review Illegality Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

Con & Ad: Judicial Review - Illegality
- Definition: JR is the mechanism whereby courts able to scrutinise decision-making processes and legality of actions taken by public authorities

Preliminary Issues

1. Amenability to Judicial Review?: only public law decisions made by public body amenable to JR (CPR Pt 54.1).
- 2-part test - R v Panel for Takeover and Mergers ex p Datafin, [Lloyd LJ]:

1. source of power?: if statute/subordinated legislation  public body.

2. public law function?: substitutability test - would govt. have to set body up if didn't exist?
- application: regulatory agencies  PB (R v ASA ex p Insurance Services; R v Bar Council ex p Percival). sporting bodies  not PB (R v FA ex p Football League; R v Jockey Club ex p Aga Khan). religious bodies  not PB (R v Chief Rabbi ex p Wachmann). contracting out: dep. on degree of statutory penetration / special powers. R v Servite Houses ex p Goldsmith: elderly residential home  not public function (just contract). R (A) v Partnerships in Care: LA + private home regulated by statute  public function. YL v Birmingham CC: private care home  not public function.
- overlap with HRA 1998 public authority - Aston Cantlow, [Ld Hope]: overlap between 2 tests.

2. Procedural Exclusivity?: is claim abuse of process? (JR: stricter procedures than civil action).
- general rule: public law decision  only JR may be used (O'Reilly v Mackman: Irish prisoner).

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes.