Judicial review, grounds of review

The leading authorities to know, and how the doctrine developed over time. A public-law decision may be challenged on the grounds of illegality (the decision-maker misunderstood or exceeded its powers), irrationality (no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it), or procedural impropriety (failure to observe basic rules of fairness or statutory procedure). Proportionality applies where Convention or retained EU rights are engaged.

Leading cases

1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp (1948) [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal.

   Source of the irrationality standard, a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.

2. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords.

   Collapsed the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error distinction, virtually any error of law is reviewable.

3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) [1985] AC 374, House of Lords.

   Lord Diplock's tripartite classification of grounds (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety), the structural map of judicial review.

4. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) [2001] UKHL 26, House of Lords.

   Recognised proportionality as a distinct, more intensive standard where Convention rights are engaged.