A more recent version of these Judicial Review notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
JUDICIAL REVIEW Step 1: procedural requirements Does the decision-making body exercise a "public function"?If yes, open to judicial review by the High Court, on the basis of R54.1 Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Possible claimants would have to seek the court's permission to apply for JR
- r54.4 CPR?
Must be done without undue delay - s31(6) Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA) "Promptly" and no later than 3 months after grounds to make the claim first arose - s54.5 CPR
?Court has discretion to extent the time limit but C must hence be advised to file their application swiftly
Step 2: does the C have standing?
S31(1) SCA - claim can be made only if individual has "sufficient interest" to challenge the decisionWill have locus standi if person directly affected by the decision
Fleet Street Casuals (1982): standing = question of both fact and law, having regard to all the circumstances ? merits of challenge are an important if not dominant factor in determining whether C has sufficient interest.
? Lord Fraser: C must have a "reasonable concern" with the matter - here taxpayer will not normally have sufficient interest in dealings of Inland Revenue with other taxpayers. Associational standing - ex parte Greenpeace No 2 (1994): pressure group allowed to issue a claim on behalf of local members ? individuals must be identifiable who are members or whom it claim to represent Public interest standing - World Development Movement (1995): highlyrespected pressure group successful challenged gov decision to spend very large amounts of money in economically-flawed oversea dev scheme
? Rose LJ: in absence of a challenge by the pressure group, hard to see who could be an alternative challenger ? importance of vindicating RoL as key argument in favour of acknowledging standing
? Factors: seriousness of the allegations, strength of the C's case, expert and informed character of C Under HRA: only victim can bring proceedings in the meaning of s7 HRA ? person directly affected
Step 3: is there an ouster clause?
Courts have narrowly construed legislative provisions appearing to inhibit recourse to judicial review
Ouster clause will be ineffective where decision resulted from a determination ultra vires (error of law) - Anisminic: error of law made by the Commission in rejecting an application made the purported determination a nullity ? review of a purported determination was not precludedLord Woolf MR in Ex parte Al-Fayed (1997): ouster provision did not affect the power of the court to ensure that the requirement of fairness was met - inference that Parl did not intent to exclude JR in cases alleging unfairness or discrimination
Step 4: grounds of challenge
1. Illegality Decision-maker must correctly understand the law regulating their decision-making powers and must give effect to the law - Lord Diplock in GCHQ (1985) i.
Narrow ultra vires: lack of jurisdiction
Requirement that the decision falls within the statute that confers the power ? focus upon statutory interpretation (hence associated with Parliamentary intention) ii.
Excess of jurisdiction a. Error of law
Body may misinterpret its legal powers by misunderstanding the statutory provision enabling it to actAny error of law affecting the decision is ultra vires ? can be quashed by the court - Anisminic b. Error of fact
Court will intervene where the authority has incorrectly evaluated a fact that is essential for deciding whether or not it has certain powersEx p Khawaja (1984): Question = is there sufficient evidence to justify the public body's belief?
o HoL held that court could substitute its view for the decision of the immigration officer as to whether a person was an "illegal entrant"
[?] Ex p Pulhofer (1986): where term to be evaluated by the authority is so broad and vague that reasonable person may disagree about its meaning ? generally for the authority to evaluate its meaning, unless obvious that public body acted perversely.Here whether the applicants were homeless was a question of fact for the authority to determine c. In which situations should the court intervene?
R (A) v Croydon (2009): court would look at quality of initial decision-making process: better it was, less willing the court would be to interfere ? important feature of JR emphasising the way a decision is reached iii.
Wrongful delegation of power
An official who is entrusted with power should not transfer that power to someone else - Barnard (1953)Lavender & Son (1970): minister had dismissed a planning appeal based on policy objections entered by another minister ? Minister failed to exercise of his discretion, had acted under the dictation
Exception: Carltona principle: minister can act through a civil servant in department?
iv. Rreaffirmed in Golden Chemical Products (1976): duties imposed on ministers and their powers can normally be exercised by officials in the department Minister's discretion to devolve decision to officials may not be unqualified ?
open to challenge on ground of irrationality where designated officials of wholly inappropriate standing or qualification o Oladehinde (1991): responsible official suitably experienced to exercise this power Improper purpose
Powers should be exercised for purposes for which have been conferred, not for ulterior motive/purpose World Dev Movement: gov had statutory power to give financial aid to other countries for "eco purposes"
? CA: Minister's decision was unlawful because it was not within the statutory purpose ? Parliament must have intended the word "economic" to include only "sound" eco decisions so the court was entitled to infer that decision had been made primarily for an ulterior motive Porter v Magill (2002): local authority could dispose of land under Housing Act 1985 to achieve proper housing objectives, but cannot distort policies to seek electoral advantage ? deliberate misuse of power v.
Decision-maker can abuse their discretion if unnecessarily restrict the circumstances in which they will use it British Oxygen (1971): policy that grants would be payable only in respect of products above a certain size
? Ministry entitled to have general policy - assists authority in making decisionmaking more efficient
? However, Lord Reid: adoption of over-rigid policy, excluding any exception in any circumstances, could be challenged by a C affected by it. vi.
Relevancy and irrelevancy a. Decision-maker must consider relevant factors
Singh (1986): immigrant adjudicator ignored relevant factor of third party interests regarding deportation of individual ? individual in question was an important member of his community
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Notes.