What is meant by unreasonableness in judicial review?

A decision may be irrational if; it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have come to the same decision, also known as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (although a less strict test applies if human rights are at stake)

What is substantive judicial review?

Substantive grounds are those grounds of judicial review that purport to criticise the overall basis or substance of a decision by a public body – while procedural grounds are concerned with addressing flaws in the manner in which a decision by a public body was actually made.

What is unreasonableness in law?

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 administrative law judicial review?

Judicial review is the court’s power to review the actions of other branches of government, especially the court’s power to deem invalid actions exercised by the legislative and executive as ‘unconstitutional’.

What are the three heads of 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 principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness?

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. It is not based on what the court considers unreasonable.

Which is the best definition of unreasonableness?

A standard of unreasonableness used in assessing an application for judicial review of a public authority’s decision.

When is a reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable?

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). The test is a different (and stricter) test than merely showing that the decision was unreasonable.

When is a decision in a court of law unreasonable?

All of the tests are circular; a decision is unreasonable if it is manifestly absurd, if it is “outrageous in its defiance of logic” or if a reasonable person would not have come to it. [2]

Is there still a role for judicial review?

Unreasonableness was applied as a safety net to a decision that was manifestly absurd. On its face this case would seem to present a good example of unreasonableness being applied in exactly the kind of situation that Lord Greene MR envisaged. Indeed the conclusion is probably a good one.