Chat with AIExam 22: Grounds for Judicial Review I: the Substantive Grounds for Judicial Review
All delegations of powers conferred by statute are unlawful.
(36) 
VerifiedFalse
With reference to case law, describe the courts' approach to errors of fact as a ground for judicial review.
(37) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotIn judicial review, errors of fact are generally not considered a ground for challenging a decision unless they are so significant that they amount to an error of law. The courts have consistently held that they will not interfere with findings of fact made by a lower tribunal unless there is clear evidence that the decision was based on a mistake of fact that is material to the outcome of the case.
In the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, the court held that an error of fact would only be considered as a ground for judicial review if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to the same decision. This principle, known as the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test, has been widely applied in cases involving errors of fact.
Similarly, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, the House of Lords held that the courts should only intervene in decisions based on errors of fact if the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
Overall, the courts' approach to errors of fact as a ground for judicial review is one of deference to the decision-making authority, with a high threshold for intervention. Only in cases where the error of fact is so significant that it amounts to an error of law or is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion will the courts consider it as a ground for judicial review.
In general the courts are more reluctant to review errors of law than errors of fact.
(31) VerifiedFalse
In the GCHQ case (1985) which of the following was NOT mentioned as a principal head of judicial review but was accepted as a head which could develop in the future?
(33) If an authority misinterprets its legal powers this can be a basis for judicial review.
(35) Which of the following terms have been used interchangeably with the term 'irrationality'?
(39) The doctrine of proportionality only applies where an issue of fundamental human rights is in question.
(41) An authority may act in an ultra vires manner if it adopts a policy which leads to it not truly exercising its discretion at all.
(42) With reference to case law, describe how the courts approach the concept of irrationality in judicial review proceedings.
(39) The case of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) destroyed the distinction between errors of law which 'went to jurisdiction' and errors of law within jurisdiction.
(36) The European Court of Justice does not recognise the doctrine of proportionality.
(43) Explain with reference to case law the courts' approach to the fettering of discretion.
(35) Outline the facts of and legal principles laid down in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
(41) With reference to case law, outline and evaluate the doctrine of ultra vires as a rationale for judicial review.
(35) Which of the following distinctly fall within the head of judicial review relating to 'irrationality'?
(36) With reference to case law, describe how the courts distinguish between proper and improper use of power.
(36) Explain with reference to case law how the courts approach the doctrine of proportionality in relation to judicial review.
(32) Traditionally, the courts have divided their approach to ruling on errors of fact into how many categories?
(40) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)