header-logo header-logo

11 April 2019 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 7836 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Challenging the balance of power (Pt 3)

In his final update, Simon Parsons considers the development of proportionality as a ground for judicial review

  • Has proportionality as a ground for judicial review overtaken irrationality?
  • Judicial review remedies.

The two previous articles in this series covered the judicial review process in relation to executive action and the possible grounds to challenge the public law decisions taken by public bodies (see NLJ 8 March 2019, p18 and NLJ 15 March 2019, p17). The focus here is on the development of proportionality as a ground for judicial review and whether it has overtaken irrationality.

Proportionality

In Council of the Civil Service Union v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case) the House of Lords held that a public body’s decision may only be quashed if it abused its power (illegality), or if it failed to observe the basic rules of natural justice or it failed to act with procedural fairness (procedural impropriety), or if the public body’s 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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll