SQE1 Judicial Review Flashcards

Judicial review is the supervisory process by which courts assess the lawfulness of public decision-making, generally not the merits or wisdom of the decision.

Illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality (the GCHQ grounds). Legitimate expectation and proportionality may also be relevant depending on the case.

Decisions involving the exercise of public functions or powers, usually by public authorities. The nature of the function matters; a private organisation can sometimes exercise a reviewable public function.

No. An ordinary contractual dispute is generally a private-law claim even if one party is a public authority.

A claimant should normally use judicial review procedures to challenge a public-law decision, rather than circumventing JR safeguards through ordinary proceedings. Exceptions can arise, including genuine mixed public/private-law disputes.

A sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates; standing is assessed contextually and can be considered at permission or later if facts require.

Where it has a genuine connection, expertise or representative role in the issue, especially if affected persons cannot readily litigate and there is no more suitable challenger; standing is assessed in context.

For a claim that a public authority acted unlawfully under section 6 HRA, the claimant generally must be a 'victim' under section 7 HRA, a narrower test than JR's sufficient interest requirement.

File promptly and in any event generally within three months after the grounds first arose. A claim can be too late even within three months; special shorter limits apply to some cases.

Generally six weeks for claims within the relevant planning judicial review rules; check the specific decision and procedural category.

Follow the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol where applicable: send a letter before claim identifying the decision, grounds and remedy, and allow a reasonable response (normally 14 days). The protocol does not extend the filing deadline.

Permission stage (the court decides whether the claim may proceed), then substantive hearing if permission is granted. Permission may be determined on the papers or at an oral hearing in appropriate circumstances.

The court generally must refuse permission or relief where it appears highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different without the complained-of conduct, subject to an exceptional public interest exception (Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31).

Generally yes: judicial review is a remedy of last resort, so suitable statutory appeals, tribunals or other adequate remedies should ordinarily be pursued first.

A public authority acts beyond the legal powers granted to it, including by exceeding the scope or purpose of a statutory power.

Equality Act 2010, s 149: when exercising functions, public authorities must have due regard to eliminating prohibited discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations regarding protected characteristics. It is a duty of consideration, not necessarily a particular outcome.

Where a decision-maker delegates a power without statutory or other lawful authority. Internal action by civil servants for ministers can be permissible under the Carltona principle; statutory context is crucial.

A decision-maker must take account of legally mandatory relevant considerations and must not rely on legally prohibited irrelevant considerations; the enabling statute and context determine relevance.

No. Courts interpret clauses excluding review carefully in light of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. The effect depends on the precise statutory language and current case law; do not assume review is automatically excluded.

Failure to comply with legally required decision-making procedures, whether statutory or arising from common-law fairness (natural justice).

No. Consequences depend on statutory interpretation, the purpose of the requirement, the nature of the breach and applicable remedies; the mandatory/directory terminology is a guide, not a mechanical test.

Procedural fairness may require a person affected by a decision to know the substance of the case against them and have a fair opportunity to respond; the content of the duty varies with the circumstances.

Actual bias; automatic disqualification for certain direct interests; and apparent bias. The usual apparent-bias test asks whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.

No. A sufficiently direct financial interest can trigger automatic disqualification, even without proof that the decision was actually influenced.

Where legislation requires it, a clear promise or established practice creates a legitimate expectation, or fairness exceptionally requires consultation. There is no universal common-law duty to consult.

No universal duty. Reasons may be required by statute or fairness, especially where important interests are at stake or the decision is otherwise difficult to understand or challenge.

A sufficiently clear representation, promise or consistent past practice by a public authority may generate an expectation as to procedure or, in exceptional cases, a substantive benefit; context and overriding public interest matter.

Procedural: expectation of a process such as consultation before a change. Substantive: expectation that a promised benefit or treatment will continue; courts scrutinise substantive promises particularly carefully.

A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable public decision-maker, properly directing itself in law, could have made it. The threshold is high and the intensity of review depends on context.

Proportionality uses a structured assessment of legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity and fair balance (often expressed as four stages); Wednesbury review ordinarily asks whether the decision exceeds the high threshold of irrationality.

Quashing, mandatory and prohibiting orders, declarations and injunctions (and damages only where an independent legal basis exists). Remedies are discretionary; a successful challenge does not automatically secure the outcome the claimant wants.