Amenability
Share
Amenability in judicial review refers to whether a decision, action, or body can be challenged in the courts through the judicial review process. This concept determines whether a particular decision made by a public or private entity is subject to scrutiny based on principles of public law. Judicial review is a key mechanism for ensuring that public authorities act within their legal limits and follow the principles of fairness, rationality, and legality.
In UK law, the question of amenability focuses on the nature of the body or decision being challenged, rather than its formal classification. The primary test is whether the body in question exercises a public function or public powers. Bodies like government departments, local councils, and regulatory agencies are clearly subject to judicial review because they wield statutory powers affecting public rights and interests. The courts ensure that these public bodies remain accountable for decisions that have a broad public impact.
Importantly, the question of amenability can also extend to private bodies. If a private entity is performing public functions or exercising powers that affect the public, its decisions may be subject to judicial review. A key principle is that even a private body can be challenged if it is effectively stepping into the shoes of the state. This was confirmed in R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin [1987], where the Court of Appeal ruled that the decisions of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, a private body, were amenable to judicial review because it carried out regulatory functions that affected the public and had significant consequences for the financial market. In Datafin, the court emphasised that the source of the body’s power (whether public or private) is less important than the nature of the function being exercised.
The correct legal test to determine whether a decision is amenable to judicial review, especially when the source of the power does not provide a clear answer, was articulated in R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Market Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 233. In this case, the court clarified that a decision is amenable to judicial review if the nature of the power and function being exercised has "a sufficient public law element, flavour, or character to bring it within the purview of public law." This test underscores the importance of the public law character of the power in question, regardless of whether it is exercised by a public or private entity.
While judicial review is typically directed at public authorities, there are limits. Purely private matters, such as decisions involving private contracts or disputes, are generally not amenable to judicial review. However, as seen in R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002], a private healthcare provider operating a secure psychiatric unit was found to be subject to judicial review because it performed a public service with significant consequences for the public, demonstrating that private entities performing public functions can still fall under the jurisdiction of public law.
In summary, amenability to judicial review depends on whether a body or decision exercises public powers or performs a public function, affecting the rights and interests of the public. The landmark cases of Datafin and Beer illustrate that the nature of the function, whether it has a public law character, is crucial in determining amenability, rather than whether the body itself is public or private. This approach ensures that decisions with significant public impact remain subject to the courts’ scrutiny to uphold the rule of law.
In UK law, the question of amenability focuses on the nature of the body or decision being challenged, rather than its formal classification. The primary test is whether the body in question exercises a public function or public powers. Bodies like government departments, local councils, and regulatory agencies are clearly subject to judicial review because they wield statutory powers affecting public rights and interests. The courts ensure that these public bodies remain accountable for decisions that have a broad public impact.
Importantly, the question of amenability can also extend to private bodies. If a private entity is performing public functions or exercising powers that affect the public, its decisions may be subject to judicial review. A key principle is that even a private body can be challenged if it is effectively stepping into the shoes of the state. This was confirmed in R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin [1987], where the Court of Appeal ruled that the decisions of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, a private body, were amenable to judicial review because it carried out regulatory functions that affected the public and had significant consequences for the financial market. In Datafin, the court emphasised that the source of the body’s power (whether public or private) is less important than the nature of the function being exercised.
The correct legal test to determine whether a decision is amenable to judicial review, especially when the source of the power does not provide a clear answer, was articulated in R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers Market Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 233. In this case, the court clarified that a decision is amenable to judicial review if the nature of the power and function being exercised has "a sufficient public law element, flavour, or character to bring it within the purview of public law." This test underscores the importance of the public law character of the power in question, regardless of whether it is exercised by a public or private entity.
While judicial review is typically directed at public authorities, there are limits. Purely private matters, such as decisions involving private contracts or disputes, are generally not amenable to judicial review. However, as seen in R (A) v Partnerships in Care Ltd [2002], a private healthcare provider operating a secure psychiatric unit was found to be subject to judicial review because it performed a public service with significant consequences for the public, demonstrating that private entities performing public functions can still fall under the jurisdiction of public law.
In summary, amenability to judicial review depends on whether a body or decision exercises public powers or performs a public function, affecting the rights and interests of the public. The landmark cases of Datafin and Beer illustrate that the nature of the function, whether it has a public law character, is crucial in determining amenability, rather than whether the body itself is public or private. This approach ensures that decisions with significant public impact remain subject to the courts’ scrutiny to uphold the rule of law.
