Ads
related to: judicial review irrationality pdf- Document Review Services
Learn more about our
Document Review Services
- Why Integreon?
Learn how Integreon can help
your business.
- Corporate Legal Solutions
Learn about our solutions
for corporate legal departments
- Law Firms
Graphic design & slide deck design
for law firms
- Document Review Services
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
"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.
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 ...
Heydon J held that as the Tribunal's reasoning was not illogical, it was not necessary to decide whether irrationality was a ground of judicial review. [ 1 ] : at [87] Findings of jurisdictional fact
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]
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.
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.
The Court said: "It hardly needs any emphasis that the judicial process is unsuitable for reaching decisions on national security." [31] The Court also rejected the proposition that the principle of proportionality be recognised as a separate ground for judicial review. Rather, it should be subsumed under irrationality, in the sense that if an ...
A central difference between judicial review based on human rights, and judicial review based on common law ground that a decision is "Wednesbury unreasonable" and ultra vires, is that infringements of rights can only be defended if the infringement is 'proportionate'. If the infringement is disproportionate, the right is violated.