• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

We are presented with a question finding its roots in the Judicial Review area of Administrative law. The essay will also investigate the changing role of the Wednesbury test in judicial review and its apparent superseding by the mo

Extracts from this document...


We are presented with a question finding its roots in the 'Judicial Review' area of Administrative law. Particularly, a quote (Varuhas, 2009) is presented which probes into the level of scrutiny a court can place into a Minister's decisions and touches upon how far a court can look into the substance of a decision, surpassing the usual 'unreasonableness' approach. The doctrine governing this area that of 'separation of powers' which forces the court to take a stand-off approach to executive decision making. The essay will also investigate the changing role of the Wednesbury test in judicial review and it's apparent superseding by the more European-friendly 'proportionality test'. This is a widely discussed topic with a vast range of commentary and jurisprudence attempting to shed light on the muddle that this area of judicial review is in. With no decisive guidance in law of which test is prevalent, there continues to be a battle between the schools of thought supporting each approach, causing a lack of transparency and predictableness in the outcome of cases. What is Judicial Review? Judicial review is a key form of holding the Executive accountable for decisions they make. It is brought to a court, which then determines whether a public body's decision is unlawful and of no effect, while exercising it's discretion whether to grant remedies. ...read more.


In their article "Beyond Wednesbury: substantive principles of administrative law", in which they propose a review of the administrative system, Lester and Jowell (1987) opine that Wednesbury is "confusing and tautologous... It allows courts to interfere with decisions that are unreasonable, and then defines an unreasonable decision as one which no reasonable authority would take". Thus, this rejects even the compromise of a bifurcation, as the Wednesbury test would be left unreformed, with all these criticisms in tow. In their book 'Administrative Law', Wade and Forsyth (2004, pp.371-372) discuss the inevitable 'coup de grace' that looms over the Wednesbury approach, though has not yet fallen "despite calls for it from very high authorities". Of course with such high pressure here it is obvious why the area is seen to be in a 'muddle', with some cases, (such as the Indian case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Hazarilal) stating that "Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality", though this of course is a large overstatement of our law at present. In his paper "The Rise and Ruin of Unreasonableness", Andrew Le Sueur (2004) is quick to speculate how the Wednesbury approach has survived this long. He says "we have heaped too much on the reasonableness test... ...read more.


That said, caution is required here, as with proportionality, by it's very nature involving the courts prescribing alternatives to the decision made could very easily cause a descent into a 'merits review'-esque approach, which is contrary to the separation of powers doctrine. An interesting point is put forward in Rivers' (2006) article 'Proportionality and variable intensity of review' that, knowing that the judicial role is to secure legality rather than correctness, in order to avoid deference, it is better to state that your are testing for 'unproportionality' rather than prescribing what would be a proportional remedy. Conclusion Though we came to the conclusion that a bifurcatory approach seems to have the most merits, with the obvious bonus of certainty, the problem of exponential discretion is avoided by limiting the proportionality test to rights-based cases, allowing a balance of collective and private interests. Looking now at a quote from Leyland and Anthony's (2008) 'Textbook on Administrative Law' stating that proportionality, '"in contrast to irrationality is often understood to bring courts much closer to reviewing the merits of a decision". This shows that merits are only looked at to a certain extent without breaching the separation of powers doctrine. Should there be a call for a complete fresh start, a completely inalienable and moral proportionality test needs to be developed, or there will always be call for the traditional Wednesbury test. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Public Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Public Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    This paper will deal with the common law legal system as a legal transplant, ...

    4 star(s)

    A Brief History of Burma/Myanmar Pre- colonial Burma was a civil law jurisdiction. Native Burmese law took the form written law-texts (called dhammathats), interpreted and applied by specialist lawyers (called shene). Burmese law was not only a developed formal legal system; it was also a substantive law focused on alternative dispute resolution rather than formal litigation.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Essay on the function of Judicial Review

    4 star(s)

    The second ground is irrationality. This ground is often used interchangeably with Wednesbury Unreasonableness, after Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp (1948) in which such unreasonableness was defined by Lord Greene as a decision "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have come to it".

  1. Public Law Assignment

    The aspect of the Diceyan doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK has changed in recent years, and this process of change will continue during the present century. The notion of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty no longer makes legal or constitutional sense.

  2. Is the ultra-vires doctrine the best justification for judicial review?

    It is a basic constitutional principle that all powers exercised by or originate in statutes. Ultra vires can fall into two of the three grounds of review mentioned by Lord Diplock5. Under the ground of illegality, the authority in question may be said to have acted ultra vires if its

  1. Public Law - Problem Question - Judicial Review

    While previously the courts looked at the source of a public body's power, since the seminal case of ex parte Datafin,1 the judges now encompass in the test the nature of the function performed by the body. Lloyd LJ in Datafin stated that if a particular body "is exercising public

  2. Public law and Administration problem question

    of her money under the compensation scheme created under section 1 of the Banking Rescue Act 2008. Despite making a claim to the Treasury 4 months ago, at which point she was advised that she would have the money within 4 weeks, she has not yet received any payment.

  1. Public Law Essay

    It will be assumed that no right of appeal exists and mediation is generally not available. Judicial review procedures are governed by the Civil Procedures Rules (hereinafter CPR) and the Senior Courts Act 19817 (hereinafter SCA 1981). Complainants are usually not permitted to raise claims by ordinary writ8 except where

  2. Critically evaluate the ability of tribunals to deliver effective administrative justice.

    the tribunals may be slowed down even further with the additional bureaucracy that they have lost their merit in providing an effective source of justice. Also, a lot of the tribunals such as the Employment Appeal Tribunal have became so court-like over the years that many litigants struggled to understand

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work