header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 March 2019 / Simon Parsons
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Challenging the balance of power (Pt 2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

In his second update, Simon Parsons examines the possible grounds to challenge the public law decisions taken by public bodies
  • Grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety.

See 'Challenging the balance of power (Pt 1)' here

Decisions of public bodies are liable to challenge by way of judicial review and may be quashed as ultra vires (beyond the powers) by reference to the ordinary principles of English public law. The jurisdiction of the court is supervisory and not appellate thus judicial review looks at legality, not merits (the quality of the decision) it cannot (supposedly) provide the applicant with a substitute decision as the decision is for government.

Substantive hearing stage

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] A C 374 HL (the GCHQ case) Lord Diplock identified (at 410-411) three grounds of judicial review as: 

  • Illegality -where a public body abuses its power. (Substantive ultra vires).
  • Irrationality -unreasonableness- a decision that defies logic- a decision that no sensible person who had applied his mind to
    • 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

    Read All
    Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

    Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

    Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

    Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

    Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

    International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

    Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

    Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

    Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
    Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
    NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
    The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
    NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
    A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
    NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
    After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
    NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
    Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll