- Published on
KembaraXtra-Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985)
This case, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985), is crucial for understanding the grounds of judicial review in UK administrative law. Lord Diplock's contribution is particularly significant.
I. Central Argument:
Lord Diplock elegantly summarizes the grounds for judicial review, stating that they can be conveniently classified under three heads. While he doesn't detail the historical development, he emphasizes that this categorization is a snapshot of the current state of the law – leaving open the possibility of future expansion.
II. The Three Heads of Judicial Review (According to Lord Diplock):
The text doesn't specify what these three heads are. This is a critical gap. To understand the case fully, you MUST research and define these three heads. This is the most important task in your study. Commonly cited are:
Lord Diplock anticipates further development. He highlights the potential adoption of the principle of proportionality. This is a significant point.
This case, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985), is crucial for understanding the grounds of judicial review in UK administrative law. Lord Diplock's contribution is particularly significant.
I. Central Argument:
Lord Diplock elegantly summarizes the grounds for judicial review, stating that they can be conveniently classified under three heads. While he doesn't detail the historical development, he emphasizes that this categorization is a snapshot of the current state of the law – leaving open the possibility of future expansion.
II. The Three Heads of Judicial Review (According to Lord Diplock):
The text doesn't specify what these three heads are. This is a critical gap. To understand the case fully, you MUST research and define these three heads. This is the most important task in your study. Commonly cited are:
- Illegality: This refers to whether the decision-maker acted within their legal powers. Did they misunderstand the law, act without legal authority, or fail to follow proper procedures? Consider examples of procedural impropriety and errors of law.
- Irrationality (now often termed 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'): This refers to whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it. This sets a high bar for judicial intervention. Consider the intensity of review as a factor.
- Procedural impropriety: This involves a failure to follow fair procedures in making a decision. This includes issues like the right to a fair hearing, the right to legal representation, and the duty to act impartially.
Lord Diplock anticipates further development. He highlights the potential adoption of the principle of proportionality. This is a significant point.
- Proportionality: This principle assesses whether the means used by the decision-maker are proportionate to the ends sought. It involves considering whether the objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of rights, whether the measure chosen is rationally connected to the objective, whether less intrusive measures could have been used, and whether the balance between the objective and the limitation of rights is fair.
- Research and Define: Thoroughly research and define the three heads of judicial review as identified by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). Provide examples for each. Compare the differences between them.
- Proportionality: Research the principle of proportionality. Explain how it differs from the other three traditional grounds of judicial review, specifically 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. Illustrate with examples.
- Case Analysis: Find a full case report of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) and carefully read Lord Diplock's judgment in its entirety. Note how his summary relates to the specific facts of the case.
- Comparison: Compare and contrast the approaches to judicial review in other jurisdictions, particularly those within the EU/EEA, where proportionality might be a primary ground.
0 Comments