Grounds of judicial review—unreasonableness


Produced in partnership with Siân McGibbon, Barrister, 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square
Practice notes

Grounds of judicial review—unreasonableness


Produced in partnership with Siân McGibbon, Barrister, 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square

Practice notes
imgtext

This Practice Note outlines the ground of judicial review usually known as unreasonableness or irrationality.

Unreasonableness as a Ground of Judicial Review

‘Irrationality’ is the second of the three grounds for judicial review identified by Lord Diplock in the seminal case Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (‘GCHQ’). In that case Lord Diplock characterised the ground as ‘a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it’.

Today the courts often favour the language of ‘unreasonableness’ over ‘irrationality’, though the two terms continue to be used interchangeably.

This Practice Note will address the central features of reasonableness as a ground of judicial review:

  1. •

    the development of reasonableness review,

  2. •

    the Wednesbury standard of reasonableness,

  3. •

    the two limbs of unreasonableness,

    1. â—¦

      unreasonable approach/route,

    2. â—¦

      unreasonable outcome/terminus,

  4. •

    adjustments to the Wednesbury standard of reasonableness,

    1. â—¦

      â€Èٳܱè±ð°ù Wednesbury’,

    2. â—¦

      sub Wednesbury’,

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Popular documents

Duty of candour and disclosure requirements in judicial review

Duty of candour and disclosure requirements in judicial reviewDisclosure (stating that a document exists or has existed) in judicial review proceedings is expected to be achieved through compliance with the duty of candour rather than a formal disclosure process.Default lack of formal disclosure and

Costs for judicial review—general principles

Costs for judicial review—general principlesGeneral rule on costs in judicial reviewThe general rule in relation to costs in judicial review, as in other proceedings, is that costs follow the event. However, pre-emptive cost orders can be applied for.The costs of, and incidental to, all proceedings

What is fettering of discretion in judicial review? When is it an actionable ground of challenge and what

What is fettering of discretion in judicial review? When is it an actionable ground of challenge and what must be established for a challenge to succeed?Save in particular circumstances, a public body cannot prevent itself from properly considering the exercise of its discretion in individual cases.

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a