Judicial Review Notes

Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the Supreme Court's power to supervise public bodies, ensuring their actions align with the law. It acts as a check on state power, focusing on whether authority was exercised lawfully, not the decision's merits. It ensures good administration and fairness are followed by public authorities. The court focuses on the decision-making process, not the decision itself.

Judicial Review vs. Appeal

Judicial Review is supervisory, not appellate. Appeals involve re-hearing a case in a higher court, usually based on statutory rights. Appeals can address errors of law, fact, or discretion and appellate courts can substitute decisions or order a rehearing. Judicial Review challenges the legality of actions, based on grounds developed by courts over time, ensures authorities use powers properly, and is concerned with the process, not the merits of the decision.

Locus Standi

Locus standi, or 'standing', means having a legitimate basis to bring a case to court. It requires demonstrating that one's interests are or will be adversely affected. Courts may adopt either restrictive or liberal approaches, with the latter addressing public interest issues more effectively. The relevant interest may be moral, religious, social, economic, or political.

Ultra Vires Doctrine

Ultra vires means acting beyond one's legal powers. It is a central principle in administrative law to control abuse of power, especially in subsidiary legislation. It helps define the scope of state power and is viewed in the context of statutory interpretation. Substantive ultra vires involves a public authority exceeding its granted powers. The 'reasonably incidental' rule allows actions incidental to granted powers.

Locus Standi: Who Can Sue and Who to Sue

To sue a public body, one must apply to the Attorney General for permission, demonstrating locus standi, a prima facie case, and that the claim is against a public body. Public authorities, including government officials and bodies, are subject to judicial review. If the state plays a dominant role or the body exercises a public function, it is generally considered a public authority.

Grounds for Judicial Review

Rationalized into: (i) procedural impropriety, (ii) irrationality, (iii) illegality, and (iv) unconstitutionality (Caribbean states).

Main grounds for interference:

  1. Ultra Vires: Powers exercised exceed authority.
  2. Improper Delegation: Public authorities must act within their powers and cannot delegate powers conferred on someone else.
  3. Breach of Fundamental Rights: Infringement of constitutionally protected rights.
  4. Infringement of Natural Justice: Includes right to fair hearing and freedom from bias.
    • Right to a Fair Hearing: Opportunity to present one’s case before a decision is reached.
    • Rule Against Bias: Requires an unbiased decision-maker.
  5. Infringement of Legitimate Expectation: Public bodies should act consistently with established norms and practices.
  6. Abuse of Discretion: Discretion must be exercised reasonably and lawfully.
  7. Error of Law or Fact: Appearing on the face of the record.
  8. Breach by Tribunals, Arbitration, etc.: Acting ultra vires if outside jurisdiction.

Remedies Available

Discretionary remedies include certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, declaration, injunction, and damages.

  1. Certiorari: Quashes unlawful decisions.
  2. Mandamus: Compels a public body to perform a legal duty.
  3. Prohibition: Prevents unlawful decisions.
  4. Declaration: Declares rights or status.
  5. Injunction: Restraining order against a public official.
  6. Damages: Monetary compensation.