Administrative Law and Judicial Review
What this domain tests
Administrative law and judicial review tests the legality of public decision-making and the remedies available in the High Court.
Core rules
- Judicial review is concerned with the process and legality of decisions, not the merits. The High Court's review jurisdiction is constitutionally entrenched.
- Grounds include illegality (ultra vires, error of law, improper purpose), irrationality or unreasonableness, and procedural impropriety.
- Procedural fairness requires notice, a fair hearing, an unbiased decision-maker and, where appropriate, reasons.
- Legitimate expectation may arise from a promise or consistent practice; it can require consultation or a hearing before departure.
- Remedies include certiorari to quash, prohibition to restrain, mandamus to compel, declaration, injunction and habeas corpus. Damages are not the normal remedy.
- Judicial review must be brought promptly; delay can defeat relief.
Worked example
A local authority revokes a trader's licence without notice or a hearing. The trader applies for judicial review. The decision is unlawful because the statutory power was exercised without procedural fairness. Certiorari quashes the revocation, and mandamus may compel a fresh lawful decision. The court does not substitute its own view on whether the licence should issue.
Traps
Do not use judicial review as an appeal on the merits. Do not ignore alternative remedies or delay. Do not allege bias without evidence. Do not seek damages as the primary remedy. Always identify the public body and the statutory source of power.