header-logo header-logo

07 March 2019 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 7831 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Challenging the balance of power

In the first part of a series of three articles, Simon Parsons investigates judicial review of executive action

  • Challenging the power of public bodies.
  • Judicial review as a remedy of last resort.
  • Principles of English public law.
  • Procedural matters.
  • Decisions of public bodies can be challenged by way of judicial review and may be quashed as ultra vires (beyond its powers). Following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) into domestic law many judicial reviews concern the abuse of Convention rights.

    When determining whether governmental action is legal and valid, the administrative court is exercising what is known as an inherent jurisdiction, ie it derives from the common law and not from statute. The judges are very quick to resist any attempts to curtail this jurisdiction because it gives effect to the underlying values of judicial review that is the rule of law and the separation of powers. The rule of law requires that those who exercise governmental power comply with minimum standards of good

    If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
    If you are already a subscriber sign in
    ...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

    MOVERS & SHAKERS

    Cripps—Radius Law

    Cripps—Radius Law

    Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

    Switalskis—Grimsby

    Switalskis—Grimsby

    Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

    Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

    Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

    Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

    NEWS
    A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
    Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
    Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
    A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
    A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
    back-to-top-scroll