3rd party intervener/friend of
the courts: up to the courts to
accept info
Claimant
Group
Exhausted Appeals
Grounds
llegality
Traditional
Error of Law
Error of
Precedent Fact
Irrational Conclusion
as to fact
Power for
improper purpose
Duty as opposed to
discretion (could be error of
law)
Unlawful Delelgation of
Power/ Dictaion
Fettering of
Discretion
Failure to take into acount
relevant considerations
HRA/ECHR
Breach of HRA
Pub Auth act in a way that
complies with ECHR right unless
Parl. via Prim. Leg. authorises or
requires Pub. Auth. to act in a way
that is incompatible with ECHR
Right? been complied
with? any restrictions?
Lack of compliance been
authorised by statue?
YES= decision not
unlawful NO= decision
not lawful Uk law
incompatible with ECHR
Unreasonableness/
Irrationality
Wednesbury test
Refined in CCSU/ GCSU
by Lord Diplock to
Irrationality
overlap with
other grounds of
review
Proportionality in
context of ECHR
Procedural
impropriety
Breach of
Stat. duty
Mandatory
Directory
Rules of natural
justice (common/ case
law)
Right to
Know case
against you
a D-maker free
from bias(or the
appearance of )
to be heard
Cicumstancial
to be or to cross
examine
to be
represented
knowreasons
related to
decision
Disappointment of
legitimate
expectation
Procedure-
common
practise
Substantive Benefit- like
estoppel I private law
detrimental
reliance
only place
where you can
get what you
wanted in the
1st place
Remedies
Old
Quashing
order
Prohibiting
order
Mandatory
order
New
Injunctions
Declaration
Dec. of
incompatibility
S8-Compensation
Discretionary
Current
Reforms
Criminal
Justice &
Courts Act
2015
Sec 84 can refuse
remedy if outcome
wouldn't have been
substantially different