Where the effect of the decision is unnecessarily harsh. § But these are not the only questions that the court may ask in determining whether the decision complained of is appropriate for judicial review or not. As was provided in the above lists, in order to obtain leave/permission to bring an action for judicial review, the applicant must have, What about public interest? Needless to say those courts do not have an unlimited power to supervise the activities of administrative agencies. According to Cumper, prior to the case, According to Cumper, following the decision in, Although there are critics labeled against conferring discretionary powers to administrative agencies for fear that such agencies may abuse such unrestrained powers, still it remains the hallmark in the science of administration. Any proceedings should be commenced as promptly as possible. Failure to exercise discretion properly: where the decision-maker either did not exercise discretion sufficiently free from outside influences, or abused the discretion; Acting as though limited by external authorities: where the decision-maker fails to exercise any discretion at all, believing himself or herself to be bound by external rule; Decision-maker applies policy without flexibility: where the decision-maker who is conferred with discretionary powers is expected to consider each case on its own facts and merits but renders a decision rigidly without considering whether the particular case has extenuating factors which would necessitate them making an exception; Abuse of discretion: where the decision-maker uses power for an improper purpose or frustrates the legislative purpose; makes a decision on the basis of irrelevant factors or fails to take account of relevant factors; reaches a decision that is unreasonable in itself; reaches a decision that is unreasonable itself; Uses of power for an improper purpose or to frustrate the legislative purpose; Forming decision on basis of irrelevancies or ignoring relevant factors; As provided in the preceding sub-section, reaching at a decision on the basis of irrelevant considerations, or by disregarding relevant considerations, is one of the manifestations of irrationality. The three grounds are mere indications: the same set of facts may give rise to two or all three grounds for judicial review. 15.1.1 Lord Diplock in the GCHQ Case (discussed above) described procedural impropriety as ground of judicial review to include ‘the failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness’ and also ‘failure… to observe procedural rules expressly laid down in… legislative instrument’. The traditional grounds for judicial review are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. According to Brown & Bell, “this requirement creates no difficulty in proceedings against the administration for damages. The public also has an interest that governmental powers such as that to ratify treaties or to set up a non-statutory compensation scheme (, At the first stage, only cases where the applicant clearly does not have sufficient interest would be rejected. As expounded by the 19. As Cane pointed out, discretion is a feature not only of a policy decision but also of decisions on questions of fact and law, which often have no ‘right answer’ but more than one ‘reasonable answer’ from which the decision-maker must choose. Judicial review proceedings should not be commenced where there is a suitable alternative remedy. Having this general information in mind, it seems important to proceed with the details under the subsequent sub-sections. Published 19 January 2018 From: Parole Board. This could be a government department or local authority, or another body exercising a public law function such as an NHS Trust. In France, for example, many of these criteria are receiving blessing as bases for reviewing administrative decisions by administrative tribunals. At the second stage, however, a more detailed look at the applicant’s ‘standing’ should take place- it then becomes important to examine the merits of the case if the applicants have strong grounds for review, it is more likely that they will be deemed to have the necessary locus standi, In determining whether or not the applicant has sufficient interest (locus standi) for judicial review, the general opinion is that the legal and factual circumstances of each case need to be considered critically, In short, the purpose of the standing requirements is simply to ‘filter out’ unmeritorious, frivolous or trivial applications, and thereby to save the court time (Cumper, p.298). The term “jurisdiction” means “power to decide”. 14.1.1 It is extremely difficult to classify the grounds for judicial review since they are broad and can overlap. Where the decision-maker has failed to have regard to departmental policy or representation. 15.1 An overview of procedural grounds for judicial review. The person who made the decision based on the decision on the existence of a particular fact, and that fact did not exist and. § Has the applicant sufficient interest in the issue (locus standi)? This was recognised by the House of Lords in Boddington v British Transport Police (1998).. 14.1.2 The way this book breaks down grounds of judicial review is to take them in three particular categories: