header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2019 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Challenging the balance of power (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

In his second update, Simon Parsons examines the possible grounds to challenge the public law decisions taken by public bodies
  • Grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety.

See 'Challenging the balance of power (Pt 1)' here

Decisions of public bodies are liable to challenge by way of judicial review and may be quashed as ultra vires (beyond the powers) by reference to the ordinary principles of English public law. The jurisdiction of the court is supervisory and not appellate thus judicial review looks at legality, not merits (the quality of the decision) it cannot (supposedly) provide the applicant with a substitute decision as the decision is for government.

Substantive hearing stage

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A C 374 HL (the GCHQ case) Lord Diplock identified (at 410-411) three grounds of judicial review as: 

  • Illegality -where a public body abuses its power. (Substantive ultra vires).
  • Irrationality -unreasonableness- a decision that defies logic- a decision
    • If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
    If you are already a subscriber sign in
    ...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

    MOVERS & SHAKERS

    Read All
    Sponsored by
    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

    Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

    Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

    Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

    NEWS
    Read All
    ‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
    Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
    NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
    The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
    NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
    Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
    NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
    Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
    NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
    The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll