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
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

    Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Druces—Lisa Cardy

    Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

    Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
    The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
    NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
    Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
    NLJ this week: A prince no more?
    Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
    NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
    Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
    NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
    In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
    Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll