Judicial review - Remedies available in judicial review

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Judicial review plays a vital role in administrative law by ensuring that public authorities follow legal standards. For SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates, familiarity with the remedies offered by judicial review is essential. These remedies uphold the rule of law and protect against misuse of authority. This article provides an in-depth look at each remedy, their uses, and their significance in balancing administrative efficiency with legal standards.

Quashing Orders

Quashing orders, originally known as certiorari, are powerful tools in judicial review that nullify unlawful decisions made by public entities, removing any legal effects.

Key Features

  • Annul decisions deemed unlawful
  • Retrospective effect, making the decision void from the start
  • Discretionary, influenced by factors like delay and public interest

Application

Quashing orders are particularly effective for:

  1. Actions beyond legal power (ultra vires)
  2. Procedural mistakes
  3. Errors in law on the given record

Landmark Case: Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

This significant case reshaped the understanding of jurisdictional error. The House of Lords determined that any legal mistake by a public body could invalidate its decision, broadening the reach of quashing orders.

Prohibiting Orders

Prohibiting orders, previously called prohibition, are preventive measures in judicial review, stopping public bodies from unlawful actions or overstepping their authority.

Key Features

  • Forward-looking, aimed at preventing future unlawful acts
  • Specific scope, targeted at judicial or quasi-judicial activities
  • Intervening before a violation occurs

Application

Useful when:

  1. A public entity is on the verge of acting beyond its powers
  2. There's a clear threat of improper procedures
  3. A decision-maker is likely to violate principles of justice

Mandatory Orders

Mandatory orders, formerly known as mandamus, require public bodies to carry out statutory duties or make decisions they've unlawfully refused.

Essential Elements

  1. Clear legal duty exists
  2. Public body fails or refuses to act
  3. Performance demand and refusal are generally necessary

Limitations

  • Courts are careful about disrupting discretionary powers
  • Orders must be specific and enforceable

Example

When a transportation department neglects infrastructure maintenance, a mandatory order might require necessary repairs, highlighting governmental responsibility.

Injunctions

Injunctions provide flexible remedies in judicial review to either stop unlawful actions (prohibitory injunctions) or enforce specific performance (mandatory injunctions).

Key Considerations

  • Urgency: Often used when immediate action is needed
  • Balance of convenience: Weighing potential harm to involved parties
  • Public interest: A major factor in court decisions

Types

  1. Interim Injunctions: Temporary, pending a full hearing
  2. Final Injunctions: Permanent, following a trial

Real-World Scenario

A corporation violating environmental laws by polluting a river may be subject to an injunction to halt activities and start corrective measures.

Declarations

Declarations offer a flexible, non-coercive remedy, clarifying legal positions without forcing action.

Characteristics

  • Not enforceable: Unlike other remedies, they don’t compel action
  • Broad application: Clarifying rights, duties, or legality
  • Discretionary: Courts have wide latitude in granting them

Practical Uses

  1. Interpreting statutes or policies
  2. Defining the powers of public entities
  3. Resolving legal rights and obligations

Notable Case

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 - This landmark ruling clarified the constitutional need for parliamentary approval before initiating Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

Damages

While not typically a public law remedy, damages may be awarded in judicial review cases under certain conditions.

Legal Basis

  • Section 31(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
  • Human Rights Act 1998 for rights breaches

Key Principles

  1. Rare: Damages are not routine in judicial reviews
  2. Often paired with other remedies
  3. Limited amounts compared to private law cases

Case Example

R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 14 - This case established key principles for damages under the Human Rights Act, ensuring awards don’t exceed those by the European Court of Human Rights for similar situations.

Conclusion

Proficiency in judicial review remedies is vital for success in the SQE1 FLK1 exam and future legal practice. These remedies are indispensable tools for challenging decisions and maintaining legal standards. Key takeaways include:

  1. Quashing orders annul unlawful decisions retrospectively
  2. Prohibiting orders prevent anticipated unlawful actions
  3. Mandatory orders enforce statutory duties
  4. Injunctions provide flexibility in urgent situations
  5. Declarations offer clarity in legal complexities
  6. Damages are exceptional in judicial review cases

Understanding these remedies and their limitations equips candidates to adeptly engage with the complexities of administrative law and contribute to upholding legal integrity.