Judicial review is a constitutional process in the United Kingdom with which the courts control certain decisions taken by administrative bodies. In general, the courts do not interfere with the decision making process. However, a decision should not be of the Wednesbury type or unreasonable. This rule empowers the courts to interfere with decisions that are not reasonable.
Judicial review restricts excess of power. There are three fundamental elements that regulate administrative action by judicial review such as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.Redress is given on the grounds of ultra vires (Judicial review , 2006). The three principal categories under which administrative acts are liable to be subjected to judicial review are those that relate to unlawfulness, lack of reason and the employment of unsuitable procedures.
The principle of Ultra Vires is utilized by traditional redressal mechanisms. To this end specific legal mechanism have been implemented to award parties with speedy and appropriate verdicts (judicial review , 2006).Previously, a claim for judicial review was permitted only if the claimant had locus standi or demonstrable interest in the disputed matter. This ascertainment was the province of the court and some instances of the same are provided in the sequel. In IRC v. National Federation of Self – Employed and Small Businesses Ltd around six thousand workers, who performed casual work for Fleet Street newspapers were obtaining their pay by signing in false names.
This resulted in the loss of revenue to the Inland Revenue.The Inland Revenue offered an amnesty to these workers so that they would not evade taxes in future. This was objected to by the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Limited, which approached the Queen’s Bench Division for a judicial review of the amnesty. The Inland Revenue held that this federation did not have locus standi and consequently, as per the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court, should be precluded from making such an application.
The specific rule referred to by the Inland Revenue stated that the court would not permit a judicial review application unless sufficient interest could be demonstrated. The Queen’s Bench Division held that the applicant did not have sufficient interest in the matter, but the Court of Appeal held that there was sufficient interest (IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed & Small Businesses Ltd , 1982 ). This all important of locus standi was made applicable to pressure groups that had specific interest in the matter and if it was certain that no other party would intervene.The current position is that the courts have been empowered to deal with public interest matters and to allow anyone to participate in the judicial review proceedings by submitting evidence or making representations (Slapper & Kelly, 2006. P.
180). Section 1 of the Overseas Development Act empowers the Secretary of State to provide financial aid to countries in order to promote their development. A Malaysian consortium sought financial help from the UK to build a hydro – electric project on the Pergau River.The project cost was estimated at ? 316 million with a marginal benefit to the company. The government agencies of Malaysia and UK entered into an agreement for this purpose. In the meanwhile, the project cost increased to ? 397 million.
The assessment crossed the marginal profits and the company was not prepared to build the dam on the river. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom promised the Prime Minister of Malaysia that the UK would provide financial support for the construction of the dam across the river.The plaintiff World Development Movement challenged this decision as unlawful and contended that the government had not acted within the purview of the legislation (R v. Secretary for foreign affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd, 1995). The Court of Appeals held that statutes were meant to promote social and economic development. The Court refused to consider the political interests involved in this case.
Hence the Court held that the respondent had acted unlawfully.The Court had based this decision on the merits of the case as a whole. The Court further opined that the rule of law should be justified. In the present case, the Act clearly states that financial assistance should be given to projects, which are economically viable. However, there was no proof available to establish that the statutory requirement had been fulfilled. Hence it was decided by the court that the respondent had acted unlawfully (R v.
Secretary for foreign affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd, 1995).The court pointed out several aspects according to which it considered that the applicant had sufficient interest to contend the legality of the expenditure. These were first, the fulfilment of the rule of law; second, the significance of the issue; third, there was no likely challenger or an absence of a responsible challenger; fourth, the authorities had breached their duty which had been challenged; and lastly, the role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance and assistance in respect of the aid (R v.Secretary for foreign affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd, 1995). In Ellis v. Dubowski, the court pointed out that the authorities had abused their discretion.
The case involved University funding. The respondent was Higher Education Funding Council that had distributed the funds at their own discretion. The court held that the respondent had discretionary power due statute, nevertheless it had no discretionary power to delegate this authority. Thus the court held this act to be unlawful (Ellis v.Dubowski, 1921 ).
In Lavender v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, the applicant bought an abandoned quarry with the objective of producing gravel. The applicant applied for planning permission and the local authorities permitted this application. However, the Ministry of Agriculture opposed this ratification by the local authority. It was the prerogative of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to accord such permissions, but it did not do so because of the objections raised by the Ministry of Agriculture.
The court held that the act of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was unlawful because it did not exercise its discretion and it acted in accordance with the objections raised by the Ministry of Agriculture (Lavender v. Minister of Housing and Local Government , 1970). In Laker Airways v. Department of Trade, the applicant wanted to operate flights at cheaper rates between London and New York. British Airways was the only operator on this route and it apprehended that it would lose a large number of its customers.Laker was required to get a license from the Civil Aviation Authority and a permission from the US authorities to allow its flights into New York.
Accordingly Laker applied for license from the Civil Aviation Authority which was under the guidance of the Secretary of State. The other operator, British Airways raised objections, but the Civil Aviation Authority issued the license to Laker. The US authorities refused to accord permission and the Secretary of State issued a new guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority to cancel the license issued to Laker.Laker challenged the lawfulness of this new guidance in court. The court held that the change of guidance was unlawful and that such guidance should be given only under extenuating circumstances, because the Secretary of State was only empowered to the extent of giving orders that were in the nature of directives (Laker Airways v. Department of Trade , 1977 ).
APP v Wednesbury pertains to the abuse of discretion, in this case a condition was imposed by the defendant, according to which children aged below 15 years were to be disallowed from going to the cinema on Sundays.The applicants challenged this rule as unlawful and unreasonable. The court held that the condition was made in accordance with a statement of judicial restraint and thus it did not intervene in this matter. The Master of Rolls had interpreted unreasonableness as the possibility of bad faith. It also maintained that unreasonableness was an action that was so unreasonable in nature that no reasonable agency or authority could reach it (APP v Wednesbury , 1948 ). In R v.
Somerset CC ex parte Fewings, the defendant had bought some land and planned to prohibit deer hunting on it.This decision was challenged by the local hunting club based on acting for improper purposes. Under Section 120 of Local Government Act 1972, the Local Authorities could acquire land for the benefit of their area. The court interpreted the act as a covering on the management of the land and held that it raised the question as to whether banning deer hunting would be beneficial to the area or not.
The Court of Appeals held against the defendant who had bought the land and stated in its land mark ruling that the Council had not acted for a proper reason and thus its actions would become unlawful (R v.Somerset CC ex parte Fewings , 1995 ). The courts are of the opinion that the test in Wednesbury is improper and that legal accountability should be considered rather than political motives. This transpired in Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for the Environment. In this case the government implemented measured to limit the local rates.
The decision of the defendant was challenged by the council that it was acting irrationally. The House of Lords rejected the argument as being unreasonable (Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for the Environment , 1986 ).Judicial Review is the process by which the courts control some of the decisions of the organizations that are responsible for taking decisions and administration. It is chiefly employed to control acts of administration by the public bodies. However, the courts do not intervene in the usual process of taking decisions.
If an unreasonable decision is taken by these bodies, then the courts will interfere. This process has the benefit of restraining the misuse of power.Bibliographyhttp://www.credoreference.com/entry/5980533
