13. Grounds for Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety, Natural Justice, and Legitimate Expectation

Procedural Impropriety and Natural Justice
  • Procedural impropriety means breach of the rules of natural justice and failure to comply with statutory procedural requirements.
  • The rules of natural justice form a judicial code of procedural fairness. The rules are that no man is to be a judge in his own cause and that all the parties to a dispute shall be fairy heard.
  • The rules of natural justice apply to all judicial proceedings in courts and tribunals.
  • One unique feature of procedural impropriety as a ground for judicial review is that the extent to which the rules of natural justice apply varies depending on the context of the case.
  • Pecuniary bias arises where the adjudicator may have a financial interest in the outcome of a decision.
  • Personal bias is anything which might cause an adjudicator to view one side in a dispute more or less favourably than the other.
Legitimate Expectation
  • A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though there is no other legal basis upon which he could claim such treatment.
  • A legitimate expectation may arise from a representation or promise; a consistent past practice, and the conduct of the decision-maker.
  • The basic principle is that the principles of fairness, predictability, and certainty should not be disregarded, provided there are no overriding policy considerations like national security.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c...
Read more

10. Introduction to Administrative Law: The Foundations and Extent of Judicial Review

Judicial review allows people with a sufficient interest to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of a decision of a public body carrying out its public functions and enactments where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Judicial review is based on the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. The defendant must be a public body, the subject matter of a claim must be a public law matter, and the claimant must have the right to claim (they must have sufficient interest in the matter). CoA stated that if it is unclear that a case is a public law matter, the claimant should seek judicial review to avoid an accusation of abuse of process. The key principle is that it is not an abuse of process for someone to raise a public law matter as a defence in civil proceedings. Declarations, injunctions, and damages may be sought by judicial review procedure. Exclusion of Judicial Review by Parliament ...
Read more

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more