What are the grounds for illegality?
Illegality acts outside or beyond its powers, also known as ‘ultra vires’ misdirects itself in law – for example the decision maker does not understand and apply the law correctly. exercises a power wrongly or for an improper purpose – a decision must be reached on the basis of the facts of the matter in question.
What are the main grounds for judicial review?
There are three main grounds of judicial review: illegality, procedural unfairness, and irrationality. A decision can be overturned on the ground of illegality if the decision-maker did not have the legal power to make that decision, for instance because Parliament gave them less discretion than they thought.
What are the three grounds of judicial review as famously identified by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case?
⇒ In the GCHQ case, Lord Diplock famously assessed the existing authorities and placed them under three grounds for review: Illegality e.g. errors of law. Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) Procedural impropriety i.e. whether the correct procedures have been followed by the amenable body.
What are the grounds of judicial review of administrative discretion?
In Council of Civil Services Union v Minister of Civil Service the grounds of judicial review were stated to be jurisdictional error, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality and legitimate expectation.
What does illegality mean in judicial review?
A public body is not permitted to act beyond the scope of its powers and duties, which may be defined by reference to applicable legislation, whether domestic or European (including EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights).
What is the definition of illegality?
Legal Definition of illegality 1 : the quality or state of being illegal. 2 : an illegal action.
Why is the GCHQ case so important when thinking about judicial review?
The Court of Appeal held national security concerns meant that judicial review was impossible. The GCHQ case established that judicial review depends on the nature of the government’s powers, not their source.
What is meant by administrative discretion on which grounds it can be challenged in the court?
Discretion in layman’s language means choosing from amongst the various available alternatives without reference to any predetermined criterion, no matter how fanciful that choice may be…
What is administrative discretion in administrative law?
Definition. Phillip Cooper defines administrative discretion as the “power of an administrator to make signif- icant decisions that have the force of law, directly or indirectly, and that are not specifically man- dated by the Constitution, statutes, or other sources of black letter law” (Cooper 2000, p. 300).
What is a quashing order?
A quashing order nullifies a decision which has been made by a public body. The effect is to make the decision completely invalid. If the court makes a quashing order it can send the case back to the original decision maker directing it to remake the decision in light of the court’s findings.
What are the grounds for judicial review in the UK?
Lord Diplock said that there are three broad grounds of judicial review: Illegality – means that a decision maker has failed to understand or correctly apply their decision- making power.
What is illegitimate conduct as a ground for review?
⇒ Illegality as a ground for review is certainly well established in the case law, but what does it mean? Lord Diplock, in the GCHQ case, said that the law regulates the decision-making powers of public bodies and they must give effect to that.
What are two issues that can be argued under illegality?
The second issue that can be argued under illegality is fettering discretion. This heading for judicial review entails considering whether an administrative body actually exercised the power it has, or whether because of some policy it has adopted, it has in effect failed to exercise its powers as required.
What are ultra-vires grounds for review?
This assignment will consider the concept of ultra- vires in relation to illegality and procedural impropriety in the arena of judicial review. It will consider whether or not both grounds will require the reviewing to assess the balance which the decision maker has struck.