What is the test 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 is the meaning of Wednesbury?

A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223).

What is a judicial review decision?

judicial review, power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

What is the difference between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality?

Notwithstanding, Wednesbury review is concerned with the process of reasoning employed in adopting the particular decision in that the focal points are the reasons advanced for a decision. By contrast, proportionality, in the context of rights, is concerned with the outcome of a decision.

What is anxious scrutiny?

In an anxious scrutiny con- text the Court still looks for unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness.

What is proportionality judicial review?

The principle of proportionality envisages that a public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between his particular goals and the means he employees to achieve those goals, so that his action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent to preserve public interest.

What is Wednesbury principle of reasonableness?

v Wednesbury Corporation, it was held that if the Decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it, then the courts can interfere. Rather, it is a measured as a decision that a reasonable man wouldn’t come to.

What is procedural impropriety in judicial review?

A failure on the part of a public authority to act in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness and in compliance with the common-law rules of natural justice.

Why was anxious scrutiny introduced in common law?

Anxious scrutiny was originally designed to broaden the test for substantive review at common law by importing some element of the doctrine of proportionality from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

What makes a decision unlawful under judicial review?

The ‘substance’ of the decision was under scrutiny and was deemed unlawful on two grounds: With ‘anxious scrutiny’ cases (like this), the burden switches to the public body to show they had justification for infringing upon the common law protected constitutional right.

Which is the best definition of irrationality in judicial review?

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely.

Can a high court case be heard in judicial review?

⇒ The High Court refused ‘leave’ or ‘permission’ to hear the case in judicial review. The Court of Appeal (on appeal against the refusal) gave permission to hear the case in full, heard the case itself, but dismissed the application. On appeal to the House of Lords, the claimant won