Constitutional and Administrative Law: Judicial Review Report Analysis

This report provides a detailed analysis of judicial review within the context of UK constitutional and administrative law. Part A examines the core principles of judicial review, including its procedural requirements, time constraints, and the concept of amenability. It explores the role of parliamentary sovereignty, the unwritten constitution, and the influence of the rule of law. The report references key case laws such as R v Panel for Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin and O'Reilly v Mackman, and discusses the evolution of parliamentary sovereignty, contrasting the views of A.V. Dicey and Jennings. Part B applies judicial review principles to a case study involving David's applications to sell legal highs. It analyzes each shop's rejection, focusing on the grounds of illegality, legitimate expectations, irrelevant considerations, and procedural unfairness, referencing cases such as R v Liverpool Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association, and Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms. The report concludes by evaluating the potential for David to challenge the council's decisions based on these grounds, including bias and conflict of interest.

Part A:
STU87445
LLB (Hons) Qualifying Law Degree
Constitutional and Administrative Law
Presentation and Written Assignment
STU87445
Loganathan Ramasamy
2025

Judicial review is one of the most significant elements of constitutional law in the
UK, basically relating to the question of the legitimacy of government decisions. In
this regard, the courts of law assume a supervisory function, verifying the legality
and legitimacy of the judgment. Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, as
implemented inside the country, provides for the important requirements.1
The procedure is quite comparable and consistent with a statutory appeal. In terms
of start, the time constraints are the most important need for a judicial review or
JR. Non-planning cases have a three-month time limit, whereas planning cases
have a six-week time limit. The first stage in the procedure is to write a formal
letter to the defendant, detailing the claim and the context for which it is being
sought. The PAP letter, or Pre-action Protocol letter, is what it's known as.2
When the replies to the PAP letters are unsatisfactory, the next step is to give the
license. JR Claims can be filed in the Administrative Courts' Planning Courts,
which are subsequently subjected to tests to determine their validity and relevancy.
The substantive stage follows, which refers to the step after the authorization has
been obtained. The substantive stage entails the attendance of both parties, during
which the evidences given are compared and contrasted. The substantive stage also
includes the final hearing stage, during which the JR renders a decision based on
the adjudications made. The factor of amenability in the judicial review process is
equally essential in terms of how a public entity must take the decision that is
being challenged. The verdict in R v Panel for Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte
Datafin [1987] 1 QB 8153, where a privately constituted panel was amenable to the
JR process because it was a vital part of the government, is a notable case law in
this area. Along with the law of exclusivity, ouster provisions are common in the
United Kingdom. It is crucial to note, however, that the courts of law in the United
Kingdom have held that only terms that do not imply any ambiguity or cloudiness
can be excluded from the scope of judicial review. The case of O'Reilly v
Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 4is related to the rule of exclusivity, in which the
claimant was permitted to continue via judicial review since public law rights and
their subsets were at risk.
1 PART 54 - JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY REVIEW - Civil Procedure Rules' (Justice.gov.uk, 2021)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54 accessed 07 May 2021
2 Charles Banner, 'The Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol' (2008) 13 Judicial Review
3 R V Panel On Take-Overs And Mergers, Ex Parte Datafin Plc And Another (Norton Opax Plc And Another
Intervening) [1987] 1 All ER 564' (Oup-arc.com, 2021)
https://ouparc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_167.htm accessed 08 May 2021
4 O'reilly V. Mackman' (Uniset.ca, 2021) http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19832AC237.html
Accessed 22 May 2021.

The constitution of United Kingdom is unwritten constitution. This constitution is
partly written and wholly uncodified. When seeking to engage in any discussion
regarding the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, the role of the UK Constitution
is critical. One of the most frequently mentioned issues is the absence of a single
codification inside the British Constitution. It obtains from a variety of places. Its
primary source is statute law, which refers to laws made by the UK Parliament.
This provides the parliament the unrivaled authority to make laws for the entire
United Kingdom.5 The recent appearance of judicial reviews, on the other hand,
has significantly disrupted the system's long-established norm of legislative
sovereignty. With the judicial review procedure, the courts now have the authority
to determine whether a piece of legislation adopted by the parliament is legitimate
or not. Individuals, corporations, and other organizations can use judicial review to
dispute the legality of decisions made by Ministers, Government Departments,
local governments, and other public organizations.
As earlier judicial review was confined to guaranteeing solely procedural faith, the
rule of law has played a great influence in widening the field of judicial review.
For R. v Lord Chancellor Ex p. Witham6, the imposition of high judicial expenses
by the Lord Chancellor was considered an illegal hindrance to the access to justice
and so his conduct was deemed null and invalid. Although the characteristics of
legislative and constitutional authority in the United Kingdom are fundamentally
different entities, the concomitant nature of the subject matter shows an obvious
link. A.V. Dicey states that Parliament's sovereignty meant that it had the authority
to make legislation or to make laws, and there was no one authority to govern the
decision of Parliament under the British Constitution. But according to Jennings,
the authority of the Parliament derives its legal idea, and the courts will always
regard this as a law if parliament makes any legislation. The nature of
Parliamentary Supremacy was altered by the Revolution of 1688. The question in
British Railways Board v Pickin 7is whether the Board deceived parliament by a
deceptive recital in the preamble of the 1968 private act. The court ruled that no
law of God, nature, or natural justice could overturn a legislative act. Every act of
parliament must be obeyed and applied by the court, and no act of parliament may
be declared ultra vires. In essence, the notion of parliamentary sovereignty in the
United Kingdom is multifaceted and has evolved dramatically over the last few
5 Paul P. Craig, 'Proportionality And Judicial Review: A UK Historical Perspective' [2016] SSRN Electronic
Journal.
6 'R V Lord Chancellor, Ex P Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021)
https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-lord-chancellor-ex-p-witham accessed 10 May 2021.
7 'British Railways V Pickin [1974] AC 765' (Lawteacher.net, 2021) https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/british-
railways-v-pickin.php accessed 10 May 2021.

decades. The issues, however, are frequently at odds with one another due to the
presence of competing ideals and legislative forces.
While parliamentary sovereignty appears to be a straightforward notion, it is rife
with complexities, especially when considering the structure of the UK's
government structure. The notion of ultra vires, which states that only actions that
exceed the authority of public authorities can be overturned by the courts,
dominates the constitutional theory relevant to judicial review. However, legal
mistakes as well as judgments made through Royal Prerogatives are frequently
included in the issues accessible to the JR procedure. Two important goals, the first
of which relates to the prevention of the Executive of abuses of its authority and
the second, to the preservation of individual rights, fit cumulatively into the British
constitution. In this connection, the judgment of The Counsel of Civil Service
Unions v Minister [1985] AC 374 8 is very significant, as the four bases for the JR
process have been established. The ruling has been given in this context. They
included illegality, lack of rationality, procedural incorrectness and expectation
validity.
Part B:
Here, in this fact we see that David lodged four application with Solent City
council to sell legal highs but all four applications was rejected under the legal
Drug Shops Act 2018. Now we discuss the grounds for judicial review which
might help David to argue against council.
Shop A
Whether David can sue the Council for the judicial review. The Rule applicable if
judicial review is one of illegality. According to the section 1 and 2 of the legal
Drug Shops Act 2018 No shop can open within two miles of a school. As
supported by the cases R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission ex parte South
Yorkshire Transport Ltd.9 In this case the court held that the interpretation of the
word is correct and there is no grounds to judicial review. In applying the case and
the section, in shop A we see that the application was rejected because it was
situated within one miles of the Solent City junior school. Under the provision of
section 1 it is clearly mention that no one open a legal high shop within two miles
of a school. It also violates the section 2 of this act because if any shop open within
8 Council Of Civil Service Unions And Others V Minister For The Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935; [1985] AC
374.' (Oup-arc.com, 2021) https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_43.htm
Accessed 10 May 2021.
9 'R V Monopolies And Mergers Commission Ex Parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 23 HL'
(Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021) https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-monopolies-and-mergers-commission-
ex-parte-south-yorkshire-transport-ltd accessed 12 May 2021.

two miles of school then it would not fit with the moral climate of the community
which mention on the provision of this act.
So, in shop A there is no ground for judicial review where David might argue of
the rejection because the application of shop 1 directly violate the provision of the
Act.
Shop B
Whether David can sue the Council for the judicial review. The Rule applicable if
judicial review in one of illegality. As supported by the cases R v Secretary of
State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja10, In this case the court said
that the power of court is not limited to enquiring whether the evidence is proper or
not. In applying the rule we see that in shop 2 there was an error of facts which
David can use on the ground of judicial review. In section 1 of the provision said
the word ‘school’ but in shop B mention the word ‘University’ so here there is an
error of facts which may use for the ground of judicial review.
So, in shop B David might argue on the ground that the word school was not
clearly interpret. But after analyzing cases we are also see that court interpret the
word and gave judgement.
Shop C
Whether David can sue the Council for the judicial review. David could argue with
the ground of legitimate expectations it is one of the most common grounds to
determine the decisions that may be subjected to the process of judicial review. In
applying the rule if we supported the rule with cases In the case of R v Liverpool
Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association [1972] 2 QB
299,11 is relevant in this context. It found that if the expectation is substantial in
relation to a certain procedure followed by a public body, in this case a solemn city
council, courts may maintain requests for judiciary review. David can also argue
that there is an irrelevant consideration. In the case of Roberts’s v Hopwood
(1925) AC 578,12 we see that the court ruled the council order because they didn’t
exercised the power in reasonable way. This case is also relevant in this context
because we see that in The Legal Drug shops Act section 3 provisions said that
10 'R V Home Secretary Ex Parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74 (HL)' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021)
https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-home-secretary-ex-parte-khawaja accessed 12 May 2021.
11 'R V Liverpool Corp, Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators [1972] 2 QB 299' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021)
https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-liverpool-corp-ex-parte-liverpool-taxi-fleet-operators
Accessed 15 May 2021.
12 'Roberts V Hopwood (1925) AC 578 - Simple Studying' (Simple Studying, 2021)
https://simplestudying.com/roberts-v-hopwood-1925-ac-578/ accessed 15 May 2021.

council will send independent inspector but they didn’t send it so there was
irrelevant consideration on council part.
So, after analyzing the cases and rules we can see that there might a scope to argue
for a judicial review. On the other hand the council can also argue here that there is
no irrelevant consideration on their part and if they want they can refer cases to
strong their ground.
Shop D
Whether David can sue the council for the judicial review. The rule of Procedural
Unfairness is applicable. In applying the rule in shop D we see that it was rejected
under Section 3 of the provision. But in section 3 mention that the inspector who
inspect the shop must be independent one but solemn city Council appoint Sandra
for the inspection. However Sandra was the only person who was granted
permission to open shops selling legal highs. So solemn city council was failed to
comply with procedural requirements. The case of Agricultural, Horticultural and
Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms: [1972]13 is relevant
in this context. In this case the court held that failure to comply with procedural
requirements is not acceptable. On the other hand we also see that Sandra is bias
on the inspection because he was the only one who had a shop in that area so there
is a conflict of interest. The both case of R v Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724 and
Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 35714 is relevant with this context. In the both cases
the court quashed the judgement on the basis of bias. Here, we see that there is a
conflict of interest between David and Sandra and this is the reason the ground of
biasness is arise and this is also one of the reason that the solemn city council is
fail to comply with the procedural requirement as defined in statute. So David
would be able to challenge the rejection on the ground that there is procedural
unfairness on the solemn city council part. He can also challenge the rule again
bias because if David open the shop in the same area then it would subsequently
make him as a competitor of Sandra and Sandra won’t want it. The case of
REGINA v. BOW STREET METROPOLITAN STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE
AND OTHERS, Ex parte PINOCHET UGARTE (No. 3) [2000] 1 A.C. 14715 is
relevant in this context. In this case no actual evidence of bias being shown despite
the court dismissed the decision maker.
13 'Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board V Aylesbury Mushrooms: 1972 - Swarb.Co.Uk'
(swarb.co.uk, 2021) https://swarb.co.uk/agricultural-horticultural-and-forestry-industry-training-board-v-aylesbury-
mushrooms-1972/ accessed 16 May 2021.
14 'R V Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724 and Porter V Magill [2002] 2 AC 357' (Learninglink.oup.com, 2021)
https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_154.htm accessed 19 May 2021.
15 Regina V Liverpool Corporation Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association: CA 1972 - Swarb.Co.Uk'
(swarb.co.uk, 2021) https://swarb.co.uk/regina -v-liverpool-corporation-ex-parte-liverpool-taxi-fleet-
operatorsassociation-ca-1972/ accessed 14 May 2021.

So, In Shop D David might argue for judicial review on the ground of procedural
unfairness as we see in many cases court accept judicial review on the ground of
procedural unfairness. The council can also argue on the ground that the procedural
is not unfairness because they accept David appeal and granted a written appeal
where he failed to do so.
Bibliography:
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998
PART 54 - JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY REVIEW - Civil Procedure Rules
Case Laws:
'Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board V Aylesbury
Mushrooms: 1972 - Swarb.Co.Uk' (swarb.co.uk, 2021)
https://swarb.co.uk/agricultural-horticultural-and-forestry-industry-training-board-
v-aylesbury-mushrooms-1972/ accessed 16 May 2021
'British Railways V Pickin [1974] AC 765' (Lawteacher.net, 2021)
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/british-railways-v-pickin.php accessed 10 May
2021.
Council of Civil Service Unions and Others V Minister for the Civil Service [1984]
3 All ER 935; [1985] AC
374.' (Oup-arc.com, 2021)
https://ouparc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_43.htm
Accessed 10 May 2021.
O'reilly V. Mackman' (Uniset.ca, 2021)
http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19832AC237.html
Accessed 22 May 2021.
'R V Monopolies And Mergers Commission Ex Parte South Yorkshire Transport
Ltd [1993] 1 WLR 23 HL' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021)
https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-monopolies-and-mergers-
commission-ex-parte-south-yorkshire-transport-ltd accessed 12 May 2021.
'R V Lord Chancellor, Ex P Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk,
2021) https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-lord-chancellor-ex-p-
witham accessed 10 May 2021.
'R V Home Secretary Ex Parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74 (HL)' (Oxbridgenotes.co.uk,
2021) https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-home-secretary-ex-parte-
khawaja accessed 12 May 2021.

'R V Liverpool Corp, Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators [1972] 2 QB 299'
(Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, 2021) https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/law_cases/r-v-
liverpool-corp-ex-parte-liverpool-taxi-fleet-operators
Accessed 15 May 2021.
'Roberts V Hopwood (1925) AC 578 - Simple Studying' (Simple Studying, 2021)
https://simplestudying.com/roberts-v-hopwood-1925-ac-578/ accessed 15 May
2021.
'R V Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724 and Porter V Magill [2002] 2 AC 357'
(Learninglink.oup.com, 2021)
https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_154.htm
accessed 19 May 2021.
Regina V Liverpool Corporation Ex Parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators
Association: CA 1972 - Swarb.Co.Uk'
(swarb.co.uk, 2021) https://swarb.co.uk/regina -v-liverpool-corporation-ex-parte-
liverpool-taxi-fleet-operatorsassociation-ca-1972/ accessed 14 May 2021.
Journals
Banner C, ' The Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol' (2008) 13 Judicial Review
10.
Craig P, 'Proportionality and Judicial Review: A UK Historical Perspective' [2016]
SSRN.
Electronic Journal
Ewing K, 'Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty' (2017) 80 the Modern Law
Review.
Online Publications:
'Does Parliamentary Sovereignty Still Reign Supreme? | Adam Wagner' (the
Guardian, 2020)
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jan/27/supreme-court-parliamentary-
sovereignty Accessed 22 May 2020
The Models of Parliamentary Sovereignty – University of Bristol Law School Blog