header-logo header-logo

03 July 2015 / Telha Arshad , Dervla Simm
Issue: 7659 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Public
printer mail-detail

At the core of the law

nlj_7659_marlow

Dervla Simm & Telha Arshad address proportionality as a standalone ground for judicial review at common law

One of the core grounds for challenging administrative decision-making by way of judicial review is that the decision is so unreasonable as to be unlawful. However, the English common law has increasingly shown signs of moving away from the reasonableness threshold embodied in the Wednesbury test ( Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, [1947] 2 All ER 680) in favour of a more intense and structured European-style proportionality review. The recent decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, [2015] All ER (D) 266 (Mar) suggests that a common law proportionality-style assessment is now firmly on the judicial review menu, even beyond the spheres of human rights and EU law.

The story so far: proportionality & Convention rights

The principle of proportionality has been integral to the jurisprudence of the European Courts for some time. In the 1988

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll