Grounds for Judicial Review
Share
Judicial review is a legal process where a court examines the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body or official. There are several grounds for judicial review, including:
Illegality: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker had the legal authority to make the decision or whether they acted outside of their powers. If the decision was made without the proper legal authority, it may be subject to judicial review.
Irrationality: This ground concerns whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. If a decision is found to be completely irrational, it may be quashed by the court.
Procedural impropriety: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker followed the correct legal procedures and gave fair consideration to all relevant factors. If the decision was made without following proper procedures or without considering all relevant factors, it may be subject to judicial review.
Proportionality: This ground concerns whether the decision was proportionate to the objective it was trying to achieve. If the decision was disproportionate, it may be subject to judicial review.
Legitimate expectation: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker acted in a way that was inconsistent with a legitimate expectation that a person or group had. If the decision-maker failed to meet a legitimate expectation without a good reason, it may be subject to judicial review.
Human rights: This ground concerns whether the decision or action violated fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of speech, or the right to privacy. If the decision or action violated human rights, it may be subject to judicial review.
The grounds for judicial review aim to ensure that public bodies and officials act within their legal powers, follow proper procedures, and make decisions that are reasonable and fair.
Illegality: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker had the legal authority to make the decision or whether they acted outside of their powers. If the decision was made without the proper legal authority, it may be subject to judicial review.
Irrationality: This ground concerns whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. If a decision is found to be completely irrational, it may be quashed by the court.
Procedural impropriety: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker followed the correct legal procedures and gave fair consideration to all relevant factors. If the decision was made without following proper procedures or without considering all relevant factors, it may be subject to judicial review.
Proportionality: This ground concerns whether the decision was proportionate to the objective it was trying to achieve. If the decision was disproportionate, it may be subject to judicial review.
Legitimate expectation: This ground concerns whether the decision-maker acted in a way that was inconsistent with a legitimate expectation that a person or group had. If the decision-maker failed to meet a legitimate expectation without a good reason, it may be subject to judicial review.
Human rights: This ground concerns whether the decision or action violated fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of speech, or the right to privacy. If the decision or action violated human rights, it may be subject to judicial review.
The grounds for judicial review aim to ensure that public bodies and officials act within their legal powers, follow proper procedures, and make decisions that are reasonable and fair.
