Judicial review: grounds
Judicial review is the process by which the High Court supervises the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. The grounds are traditionally grouped as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, with proportionality applying in human rights and (formerly) EU contexts.
What "Judicial review: grounds" covers
- Illegality: the decision-maker must correctly understand and give effect to the law - errors of law, acting ultra vires, fettering discretion, unlawful delegation, and taking into account irrelevant (or ignoring relevant) considerations.
- Irrationality / Wednesbury unreasonableness: a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury).
- Procedural impropriety: breach of statutory procedures, breach of natural justice (the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias), and the duty to give reasons where required.
- The GCHQ case classified the grounds and confirmed that prerogative powers are in principle reviewable.
- Legitimate expectation (procedural or substantive) may arise from a clear promise or established practice (Coughlan).
- Proportionality applies where Convention rights or (formerly) EU law are engaged; there is ongoing debate about it as a free-standing ground.
- Bias: automatic disqualification for a direct interest (Pinochet) and the fair-minded and informed observer test for apparent bias (Porter v Magill).
Key cases & statutes
The authorities and provisions most likely to matter for this subtopic:
How it's tested in SQE1
SQE1 uses single best answer questions: a short factual scenario, one precise question, and five options of which only one is the best answer on the law applied to the facts. For judicial review: grounds, expect to be asked what the correct legal position is, what a party may or must do, or which outcome follows — with more than one option looking arguable. Reading the facts carefully and eliminating the near-misses is the skill that earns the mark.
Where candidates lose marks
- Confusing irrationality (a high threshold) with mere disagreement on the merits - JR reviews legality, not merit.
- Treating proportionality as a general domestic ground; it is established for HRA/EU contexts.
- Overlooking that natural justice covers both the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
- Forgetting that fettering discretion and unlawful delegation are forms of illegality.
Learn this subtopic in the course
A video lesson, notes and exam-style practice on judicial review: grounds.
FAQ
Is judicial review: grounds tested on SQE1?
Yes — judicial review: grounds is part of the SQE1 Legal System, Constitutional & EU Law syllabus (FLK1) and can appear in single best answer questions.
How is judicial review: grounds examined in SQE1?
SQE1 tests it by application: you're given a realistic scenario and choose the single best answer from five options. The focus is on using the law correctly, not reciting it — knowing the leading authorities (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] (GCHQ case - illegality/irrationality/procedural impropriety), Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] (unreasonableness)) helps.