header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Challenging the balance of power (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
14 March 2019 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

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
    CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

    CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

    Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

    Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

    Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

    Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

    Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
    The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
    NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
    In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
    NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
    Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
    NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
    James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
    NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
    Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
    Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll