Public authorities are responsible for making a number of decisions that can have a serious impact on society.
Generally speaking, we trust the individuals making these decisions to act within their powers and do everything they can to ensure the decision-making process is rational, fair, and within the law.
However, this isn’t always the case, and under certain circumstances, there are grounds for what is known as a judicial review.
What Is A Judicial Review In The UK?
In short, a judicial review in the UK is a legal case where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action carried out by a public body.
They look at how a decision was reached and whether the correct processes were followed.
If the claimant wins, then the decision can be declared unlawful, and there may be grounds to quash or nullify the decision made.
That said, it’s important to note that a judicial review isn’t concerned with the conclusions of the process and whether they were right or wrong, provided that the right procedures were followed.
This might mean that the public authority will be able to make the same decision again, provided that it does so in a lawful way.
Public law is complex. If you suspect that a public authority has failed to comply with its legal obligations, you should seek advice from a public law solicitor.
What Are The Grounds For A Judicial Review?
The grounds for a judicial review include, but are not limited to:
- Illegality
- Procedural unfairness
- The decision is irrational or unreasonable
- The decision breaches human rights law
- Legitimate expectation
1. Illegality
Grounds for a judicial review include illegality.
What Is Illegality In A Judicial Review?
Illegality arises when the decision-maker doesn’t have the legal authority to make the decision, or misuses their authority, making the decision unlawful.
Examples of this include an authority acting beyond the powers granted to it (ultra vires acts) or misinterpreting the law that governs the decision.
Decisions taken for improper purposes may also be found to be illegal.
2. Procedural Unfairness
Where there is unfairness in the decision-making process, there are grounds for a judicial review.
In other words, if the process leading to the decision was improper, a decision could be overturned.
For instance, if a body that was supposed to be impartial was biased, this would be considered improper. Although actual bias is quite rare, it can disqualify a decision-maker.
If you believe that the proper procedure has not been followed, Harding Evans can help you with your case.
Our experienced public law solicitors have experience acting on many judicial review matters, examining both local and national Government decisions and public authorities.
Get in touch with our solicitors today to find out how we can assist you.
3. The Decision Is Irrational Or Unreasonable
There are grounds for a judicial review when the decision made is irrational or unreasonable.
This refers to a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have made it.
This is also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
That said, it’s challenging to satisfy, and important to note that the courts have raised the bar for irrational or unreasonable behaviour.
4. The Decision Breaches Human Rights Law
A decision can be challenged and overturned if a public authority has acted in a way that breaches the Human Rights Act 1998.
This is when a public authority has made a decision that doesn’t uphold or might risk the protections every individual has under the Human Rights Act.
Public authorities are legally obligated to respect and protect human rights in their decision-making
If they fail to do this, they are not meeting this legal obligation, and their decisions can be challenged through a judicial review.
5. Legitimate Expectation
This is occasionally considered a discrete ground for judicial review and occurs where a party has been given the expectation that a body will act in a certain way.
A legitimate expectation might arise due to express statements from the authority in question, or because of prior conduct.
For a legitimate expectation to arise, there needs to have been a clear promise or evidence of a regular practice.
A sudden departure from this can be challenged, and you should seek legal advice to find out whether this is an option.
How We Can Help
At Harding Evans, our experienced team of public law solicitors acts on a range of judicial review matters.
Our expert team can help challenge and overturn a decision where the public authority has failed to comply with its legal obligations.
Get in touch with a member of our team today to find out how we can assist you.
