United Kingdom administrative law
United Kingdom administrative law is a branch of UK public law concerned with the composition, procedures, powers, duties, rights and liabilities of public bodies that administer public policies.[1] The general principle is that a public official, or an "administrator must act fairly, reasonably and according to the law. That is the essence and the rest is mainly machinery."[2]
History
- R v Glamorganshire Inhabitants (1700) 1 Ld Raym 580, review of rates levied by county justices to pay for bridge repairs
- Local authorities
- Poor Law guardians, public health boards, School Boards
- Indian Councils Act 1909
- Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179
- Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120
- Moss Empires Ltd v Glasgow Assessor 1917 SC (HL)
- (1927) Cmd 2842
- Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, 72, Lord Reid, "We do not have a developed system of administrative law - perhaps because until fairly recently we did not need it".
- Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374, 382, Lord Diplock, the creation of "a rational and comprehensive system of administrative law" was "the greatest achievement of the English courts" in his judicial career.
- R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority [1999], held that a disabled woman told by a health authority she would have a "home for life" in a facility had a substantive legitimate expectation the authority would not shut it down.
Delegated legislation
Freedom of Information
Administrative justice
Tribunals
The tribunal system of the United Kingdom is part the national system of administrative justice with tribunals classed as non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs)
- Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
- Leggatt Review
Public Inquiries
- Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
- Inquiries Act 2005
Ombudsmen
In the United Kingdom a post of Ombudsman is attached to the Westminster Parliament with additional posts at the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and other government institutions. The Ombudsman's role is to investigate complaints of maladministration.
Judicial review
Judicial review is a procedure in administrative law by which English courts supervise the exercise of public power. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal, is unlawful, perhaps because it has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of the decision to have it set aside (quashed) and possibly obtain damages. A court may also make mandatory orders or injunctions to compel the authority to do its duty or to stop it from acting illegally. Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, English law does not permit judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by Parliament), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to EU law or the European Convention of Human Rights. A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore cannot apply for judicial review unless this is the case.
Liability
See also
Notes
References
- KD Ewing and AW Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law (2011) chs 27 to 32
- FW Maitland, Constitutional History, 501
- AV Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, app 2
- Lord Chief Justice Hewart, The New Despotism (1929)
| |||||||||||||||||||||
