Ad
related to: judicial review irrationality pdf download
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Download as PDF; Printable version; In other projects ... it was not necessary to decide whether irrationality was a ground of judicial review. [1]: at ...
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 [1] is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness in the decision of a public body, which would make it liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
"Irrationality" by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review. I have described the third head as "procedural impropriety" rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision.
Lord Diplock's threefold classification of the grounds of judicial review in the GCHQ case – illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – was adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988). [10]
Cases are listed in order of their neutral citation and where possible a link to the official text of the decision in PDF format has been provided. The case summaries below are not official or authoritative. Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges. Cases involving Scots law are highlighted in orange.
Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality.A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness.
In general, claims for judicial review in administrative law fall under three broad categories – illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Instances of illegality fall under two main headings: whether the authority was empowered to make the decision in question, and whether it properly exercised its discretion to make that decision.
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it ...