Judicial Review Task

May 23, 2023

Judicial Review Task

Question 1


  1. Whether Nigel’s case against the UK Backgammon Federation (UKBF) is amenable to judicial review.
  2. Whether there are grounds for reviewing the decision of the UKBF.
  3. What possible remedies are available for Nigel?

Rule of Law

The grounds for judicial are based on an evaluation of the scope and exercise of authority. The case of Associated Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation,[1] laid out three grounds for judicial review. The court held that a decision by a public authority can be reviewed on the basis that: such a decision was illegal, unreasonable or it was procedurally improper.[2] With regard to the issue of illegality, the court has to prove that the authority acted in a manner that was against the law. This also includes cases where the authority acted outside its jurisdiction as prescribed by the legislation or the common law. Also, as was held in Wilts United Dairies[3] the public authority acts in an illegal manner where they misinterpret the applicable law. Unreasonableness means that the public authority acted beyond the standard of the reasonable decision maker.[4] Another ground for judicial review is that the decision went against the principle of natural justice. This means that the public authority’s decision was biased. As was held in ex-parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association[5]the public authority should be seen to have acted in a manner that was unfair procedurally. In such a case he could an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the UKBF.


In the present case, Nigel has his UKBF membership revoked. He claims that the hearing was chaired by his rival, Mark. As a result of this, he claims that the UKBF was impartial and unjustified in revoking his membership. The decision for qualification done by the UKBF. It is a public authority. Its decision to revoke the membership is an administrative decision. It can thus be submitted to judicial review by the court. He can seek judicial review on grounds that the public authority was procedurally unfair and biased. This is based on the belief that the UKBF hearing was chaired by his rival. Thus, he believes that the bias is aimed at preventing him from participating in the upcoming national championship. However, on judicial review of the decision may not be successful. This is because the case of Nigel is based on well-founded grounds. The grounds for the misconduct that lead to the decision to revoke his membership are well found. The decision may be held to be lawful based on the fact that there was a reasonable ground for revoking his membership.  


If Nigel was to submit the decision of the UKBF for judicial review, the decision will stand as it is based on well-founded allegation of misconduct. He will thus be unsuccessful in proving the grounds for judicial review. He cannot therefore, be awarded an order of certiorari as the decision is justified and legitimate. The certiorari would have been awarded if he was successful.

Question 2


  1. Whether the No to the Bridge Over Troubled Water (NBOTW) have standing.
  2. Whether there are grounds for reviewing the decision by the Local council
  3. What forms should these grounds take.

Rule of Law

The issue of standing depends on whether the person seeking review is affected by that decision.[6] As was held in ex parte World Development Movement Ltd[7] the decision should affect the interests of the applicant. The decision of the local authorities can be reviewed on basis of proportionality or reasonableness of the decision. The proportionality of a decision in judicial review seeks to look at the effect and impact of decision in light of the exercise of authority. Reasonableness is based on a combination of rationality. In ex-parte Brind[8] the proportionality of the decision should be done in line with the ultimate result. The test should hence aim to ensure that there is a rational balance between the result and the legitimate aim. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department[9] interpreted reasonableness to mean that the public authority was not proportional. The test for proportionality is whether the decision was justified by a legal objective, whether the measures were carefully designed to meet the objective and whether the decision achieves a balance.[10] Additionally, a possible ground for review can be the decision of an authority on grounds that the decision was illegal. Here they will seek to claim that the decision maker acted in a manner above the authority.[11] If proved, the court can award remedies such as the order mandamus that will act as a mandatory injunction.


In the present case the NBOTW, seek to review the decision to establish a new park. They argue that it is an eye sore. They can be regarded as having the requisite locus standi based on the fact that they are affected by the decision. Their interest in this case may not be sufficient in terms of the interest it affects if they are not affected by the decision. They however have standing to bring the decision for review as they are a group of residents who will perceive the new bridge as an eyesore as they constitute the local residents in the area. They hence have standing to bring the case before the court. The decision is however legal and does not go above its statutory powers. The power under Section 4 of the Act does limit the power to the establishment of parks but the construction of a bridge is incidentally connected to the establishment of the park. The bridge allows access to the park. Moreover, the decision seeks a legitimate objective of making the proposed park accessible. The construction of a bridge is not only rationally connected to the legitimate objective and achieves a rational balance.


The NBOTW in this case do have locus standi to bring the case before the court for judicial review. They cannot however succeed as the case before the court for review as they decision is nether unreasonable nor illegal or ultra vires. Thus, the group cannot obtain an order of mandamus in this case as there is no legitimate basis. As NBOTW do not have a case, there is no remedy available.

 Question 3


  1. Whether there are grounds for reviewing the decision by the Minister
  2. Whether there exist remedies.

Rules of Law

Judicial review for such a decision can be on grounds for procedural impropriety. Here the decision can be held as procedurally improper where the it does not follow the procedure laid out in in the law.[12] As was held in the case of ex-parte Tarrant also involves the duty to give reasons behind the decision taken.[13] It also includes the right to be heard meaning that the applicant should have been granted a fair hearing. The ground of procedural impropriety can also be approached in form of the abuse of discretion. Therefore, the judicial review here occurs where the court determines whether or not a decision made is legitimate.[14] Procedural impropriety concerned with the decision-making process and scope of power by the public authority.[15]


In the present case Mr. Dant is affected by the decision to construct a new railway. The new railway will be constructed in the land is adjacent to his. He is given 27 days for consultation before the construction starts. The court could hold that there was the decision was illegitimate as it was procedurally improper. The decision gives Mr. Dant less time to properly respond to consultations and does not call all affected persons to the consultation meeting. This is clearly against the requirements of Section 2 of the Transport (Railways) Act. The minister thus acts in manner that is procedurally improper and not in line with the statute. It is an abuse of discretion. The minister also fails to give adequate reasons for the decision. It only stipulates the advantages but fails to give the information as to the detrimental impacts of the railway construction on the affected people.


The court could hold the minster’s decision as illegitimate and unlawful. The court could award a remedy of mandamus. This will be an order to compel the minister to perform the duty to carry out proper consultation by the Minister before starting the construction.

[1] [1948] 1 KB 223

[2] AG v Fulham Corp. [1921] 1 Ch. 440.

[3] [1921] TLR 884.

[4] Ibid.

[5] [1972] 2 QB 298.

[6] R v North West Traffic Commissioner ex-parte Brake [1995] NPC 168.

[7] [1995] 1 All ER 611.

[8] Ibid.

[9] [2001] 2 AC 532.

[10] R v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15.

[11] Supra note 3.

[12] Supra note 3.

[13] [1985] QB 251.

[14] R v Central Criminal Court [1886] 17 QBD 598.

[15] Ashbridge Investments Co. Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1321.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )