Procedural Fairness in the Privy Council: Themes and Reflections

Edward Lui
{"title":"Procedural Fairness in the Privy Council: Themes and Reflections","authors":"Edward Lui","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.2058198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ordinary principles judicial review many the courts fi ne themselves to a review of the lawfulness of administrative decision-making, rather than an appeal against its substantive merits. Irrationality and Wednesbury unreasonable-ness are stern tests. They are by no means satis fi ed merely because the court thinks that it would have reached a di ff erent decision … By contrast, where procedural unfairness is alleged, the court is the fi nal arbiter of what is, or is not, fair. This is because a decision made by a process which is in fact procedurally unfair is for that very reason unlawful. Thus it is necessary for the court to be satis fi ed that an allegation of unfairness falls squarely within the true boundaries of procedural unfairness, if its dominion over the answer to the unfairness question is not to lead it into an inappropriate role as the fi nal arbiter of an appeal on the merits of administrative action .","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.2058198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ordinary principles judicial review many the courts fi ne themselves to a review of the lawfulness of administrative decision-making, rather than an appeal against its substantive merits. Irrationality and Wednesbury unreasonable-ness are stern tests. They are by no means satis fi ed merely because the court thinks that it would have reached a di ff erent decision … By contrast, where procedural unfairness is alleged, the court is the fi nal arbiter of what is, or is not, fair. This is because a decision made by a process which is in fact procedurally unfair is for that very reason unlawful. Thus it is necessary for the court to be satis fi ed that an allegation of unfairness falls squarely within the true boundaries of procedural unfairness, if its dominion over the answer to the unfairness question is not to lead it into an inappropriate role as the fi nal arbiter of an appeal on the merits of administrative action .
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
枢密院的程序公平:主题与思考
司法审查的一般原则是许多法院对行政决策的合法性进行审查,而不是对其实质问题提出上诉。非理性和威斯特伯里的不理性是严峻的考验。他们绝不仅仅因为法院认为它会达成不同的决定而感到满意……相比之下,在程序不公平的指控中,法院是公平或不公平的最终仲裁者。这是因为,一个实际上在程序上不公平的程序所作出的决定正是由于这个原因而不合法的。因此,如果法院对不公平问题的答案的支配不导致它作为对行政行为是非的上诉的最终仲裁者的不适当作用,那么法院就有必要确信,关于不公平的指控完全属于程序不公平的真正界限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Article 2 and Standards of Proof in Inquests: Unintelligible, Unclear, and Unpredictable? Of Codes and Common Law: The Approach to Apparent Bias in Local Government Committees Competing ‘Clear and Unambiguous’ Constructions: Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWCA Civ 927 and the Interpretation of Private Acts of Parliament The Curious Case of Boris’ Bishop: Did the First Catholic Prime Minister Fall Foul of s 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829? Information Law and Automated Governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1