Judicial Review Principles and Key Case Law

Bagg's Case

Early example of judicial review; established courts can intervene in misuse of public power.

Datafin (1986)

Non-statutory bodies can be subject to JR if they exercise public functions.

Jockey Club

JR not available where relationship is private/contractual.

Chief Rabbi

Religious bodies not subject to JR - not public functions.

Zahi

Universities can be subject to JR - public functions despite contract.

Fleet Street Casuals

Defined public interest standing - JR available even without personal interest.

Rose Theatre Trust

Denied standing to group with no greater interest than general public.

Greenpeace (No.2)

Associational standing allowed due to members' health and expertise.

World Development Movement

Standing granted due to rule of law, importance of issue, and no other challenger.

Somerset CC

JR about abuse of power, not personal rights - public interest standing valid.

AXA General Insurance

Endorsed wide public interest standing in constitutional and rights-based challenges.

Walton

Reinforced that concerned citizens may have standing in public interest matters.

Rees-Mogg

Standing granted based on genuine constitutional concern.

Miller EU case

Confirmed public interest standing in major constitutional challenge.

Miller cherry case

Public interest standing in separation of powers case.

GCHQ (1985)

Framework for judicial review grounds.

Anisminic v FCC (1969)

All errors of law are reviewable.

Ex parte Page (1993)

Confirms Anisminic - review of all legal errors.

Padfield (1968)

Use of discretion must align with statutory purpose.

Porter

Improper purpose - political motive is unlawful.

Fewings (1995)

Relevant/irrelevant considerations.

E v Home Secretary (2004)

Mistake of fact as a separate ground for JR.

British Oxygen

Policies must not rigidly fetter discretion.

Wednesbury [1948]

A decision is unlawful if it is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.'

GCHQ (Diplock) [1985]

Irrationality = 'outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards.'

Tesco v SoS for Environment [1995]

Courts decide relevance, not weight, unless Wednesbury threshold is breached.

Bugdaycay [1987]

Where fundamental rights are at stake, courts apply 'anxious scrutiny.'

Bank Mellat [2013]

Sets out 4-stage proportionality test.

GCHQ [1985]

Defined procedural impropriety.

Ridge v Baldwin

Right to be heard in admin decisions.

Doody [1994]

Duty to give notice & reasons (in some contexts).

Coughlan

Legitimate expectation creates procedural duties.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013]

Oral hearings may be required.

Porter v Magill [2002]

Fair-minded observer test for bias.

GCHQ [1985]

Legitimate expectation from past practice; review for procedural fairness.

Coughlan [2001]

Substantive expectation; promise of 'home for life' must be honored unless justified.

Liverpool Taxi Fleet

Expectation from promise of consultation.

Unilever [1996]

Consistent past conduct gave rise to expectation.

Khan

Reliance on official policy guidance created expectation.

Mandalia [2015]

Failure to follow own policy = procedural unfairness.

MFK Underwriting

Expectation must be clear and specific.

Bhatt Murphy [2008]

Practice must target a specific group to qualify.

Bancoult (No 2) [2008]

No LE - statement was vague and not binding.

Finucane [2019]

Expectation arose, but macro-political context justified departure.

Bibi

Assurance must be considered; final decision is for the authority.

Begbie [2000]

Low-intensity review where general public policy is at stake.

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39

Established the 4-stage proportionality test in UK law.

Daly

Endorsed proportionality as a more structured and rights-sensitive test than Wednesbury.

Sunday Times v UK

Early ECtHR application of proportionality.

Hatton v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 1

Applied 'fair balance' and proportionality.

Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439

Introduced proportionality in extradition context.

Begum Case

Focused on outcome, not process alone; applied proportionality to school decision.

Goodwin v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 18

Proportionality guided dynamic interpretation under 'living instrument' doctrine.

Peck v UK

Demonstrated disproportionate interference with privacy.

Aston Cantlow v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37

Definition of public authority.

YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27

Contracted-out care services.

L&Q Housing Trust

Housing association powers.

Donough

Housing eviction & Article 8.

Godin-Mendoza

Interpretation of legislation.

In re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2018] UKSC 27

NIHRC lacked standing; must represent victim.

Rabone v Pennine Care NHS [2012] UKSC 2

Family members could claim under Art. 2 after suicide.

Callin v Leonard Cheshire Foundation [2002] EWCA Civ 366

Foundation not a public authority under s.6; rejected HRA liability for privately provided care.

Section 8 HRA 1998

(damages but rare).

Section 3 HRA 1998

Legislation must be read compatibly with Convention rights 'so far as is possible'.

Section 4 HRA 1998

Discretionary power to make a declaration of incompatibility; 'may' make a declaration.

Section 10 HRA 1998

Remedial orders (Henry VIII power).

Anufrijeva

Damages are rare, usually s3 / 4 incompatibility.

Ghaidan

Used Section 3 to read legislation in a way that extended tenancy rights to same-sex partners.

R v A

Interpreted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to allow prior sexual history evidence in rape trials when necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Bellinger v Bellinger

Court declined to use Section 3 to reinterpret the Matrimonial Causes Act regarding gender recognition; issued a Section 4 declaration instead.

Nicholson

Article 8 and assisted dying; democratic debate needed regarding infringement of autonomy.

Alconbury

Courts should follow 'clear and constant' ECtHR jurisprudence unless special circumstances justify otherwise.

Ullah

UK courts should 'keep pace' with Strasbourg jurisprudence—no more, no less.

N v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Courts declined to expand Article 3 protections in unclear Strasbourg areas.

AF

'Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed' — highlights strong deference.

Horncastle

UKSC declined to follow ECtHR where Strasbourg's judgment didn't appreciate UK legal context.

Manchester CC v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45

Emphasised constructive dialogue—courts are not bound to follow every ECtHR ruling.

Elan-Cane

Refused to impose 'X' gender marker on passports; held that UK had a wide margin of appreciation.

Re G

Lord Hoffmann suggested HRA might allow going beyond Strasbourg, rejected in Elan-Cane by Lord Reed.

Anderson

Found that the Home Secretary setting minimum prison terms violated Article 6; declaration of incompatibility issued.

Osborn

Lord Reed reaffirmed the role of common law as a parallel source of rights protection.

Kennedy

Emphasised importance of starting with domestic law, not just Convention rights.