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
    Womble Bond Dickinson—Paula Myers

    Womble Bond Dickinson—Paula Myers

    Womble Bond Dickinson appoints Paula Myers to private capital team in Leeds

    mfg Solicitors—five promotions

    mfg Solicitors—five promotions

    Law firm mfg Solicitors announces five promotions at Birmingham office

    Brabners—six promotions

    Brabners—six promotions

    Brabners adds six to partnership in record year for partner promotions

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Raising the age bar
    Calls to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 have been renewed, with the Bar Council arguing the current threshold criminalises children too early and risks pushing them towards lifelong offending
    NLJ this week: Beyond AI hallucinations
    The legal profession's AI challenge extends far beyond fabricated case citations, according to a warning about the next phase of technological risk
    NLJ this week: AML supervision shake-up
    Law firms should use the transition period before the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) assumes anti-money laundering (AML) supervision to strengthen governance and compliance, experts have warned
    NLJ this week: Options for global evidence gathering
    Cross-border disputes increasingly demand creative approaches to gathering evidence, with litigators needing to look beyond traditional letters of request
    NLJ this week: Indefinite or forever?
    A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified the distinction between contracts of 'indefinite' and 'perpetual' duration, with potentially significant implications for commercial drafting
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll