With Reference to Case Law, Describe the Courts' Approach to Errors

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is In 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.

With Reference to Case Law, Describe the Courts' Approach to Errors

Essay

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI

With Reference to Case Law, Describe the Courts' Approach to Errors

Essay

Correct Answer:Answered by ExamLex AIShow Answer

Correct Answer:
Answered by ExamLex AI