header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Challenging the balance of power (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. 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
    Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

    Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

    Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

    Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

    Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

    London labour and employment team announces partner hire

    Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

    Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

    Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

    NEWS
    Read All
    Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
    The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
    NLJ this week: The insider returns
    Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
    NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
    After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
    NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
    The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
    NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
    Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll