UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES

FACULTY OF LAW
Mona Campus

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (LAW 2710)

SEMESTER II: 2022/23

LECTURERS: TENESHA MYRIE*/ HAZELLE JONES will co-teach this semester

*(on leave until the end of February 2023)

WORKSHEET TWO

JUDICIAL REVIEW: GROUNDS *

SUMMARY

A. Introduction: Grounds for Judicial Review

B. The Ultra Vires Doctrine
C. Abuse of Discretion
D. Improper Delegation of Powers
E. Errors of Law and Fact
F. Reasons for Decision
G. Statutory Grounds for Judicial Review
H. Tutorial Questions

USEFUL READINGS
• Lord Diplock, “Administrative Law: Judicial Review Reviewed”
(1974) Cambridge Law Journal 233 at 243
• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1962] 2 AC 147
• Albert Fiadjoe, Commonwealth Caribbean Public Law 3rd edn
(Routledge Cavendish 2008) Chapter 2, pages 27 - 55
• Eddy Ventose, Commonwealth Caribbean Administrative Law
(Routledge 2013) Chapters 6, 7, 8, 14
• Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law 11th edn (OUP 2014) Chapters
8, 10, 11

1
LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this worksheet, students should be able to identify

circumstances which establish a ground for judicial review and explain
the relevant principles governing each ground for judicial review.

* Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectations are examined in worksheets #3 and #4,
respectively.

A. INTRODUCTION: Grounds for Judicial Review

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3
ALL ER 935 (“the CCSU case”), Lord Diplock identified the following
grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety,
… possibly proportionality. Lord Roskill in Wheeler v Leicester City Council
[1985] AC 1054 soon thereafter pointed out that these “three heads are
not exhaustive, and as Lord Diplock pointed out, further grounds may
hereafter require to be added. Nor are they necessarily mutually
exclusive.”

These grounds have since been expanded. Guyana’s Judicial Review Act
lists 18 grounds. Trinidad and Tobago’s Judicial Review Act lists 15
grounds. Barbados Administrative Justice Act lists 12 grounds. These
lists are not exhaustive.

B. THE ULTRA VIRES DOCTRINE: SUBSTANTIVE

AND PROCEDURAL

You will recall our discussion in Worksheet One that the ‘central principle
of administrative law is that a public authority may not act outside of its
powers (ultra vires).’ A distinction is usually made between substantive
ultra vires and procedural ultra vires. On this distinction, please read
Fiadjoe pages 29 – 33. On the doctrine generally, please look at:

• Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143

• Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
• Adams v Commissioner of Police AI 2009 HC 19
• Computer Information Services Ltd v AG Suit No. 36 of 1990, H Ct
Barbados

2
C. ABUSE OF DISCRETION

b.Irrelevant or immaterial considerations

• Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997
• National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd v
Pan American World Airways (1959) 1 WIR 461
c. Improper purposes
• West India Electric Co v Mayor and
Council of
Kingston/Kingston Corporation [1914] AC 986
• Sooknaram v Ramsarran (1964) 7 WIR 401
d.Fettering discretion
• Bolden v AG of Barbados Suit No 905 of 1989, H Ct Barbados
• Camacho and Sons v Customs Collector (1971) 18 WIR 159
e. Unreasonableness
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesday
Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1984] 3 ALL ER 935

D. IMPROPER DELEGATION OF POWERS

• Re Sarran (1969) 14 WIR 361

• Carltona Ltd. V Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560
• Ex p Suntours Ltd (1975) WIR 387

E. ERRORS OF LAW AND FACT

Errors of Fact
• R v Hackney etc Rent Tribunal ex p Keats [1951] 2 KB 15
• Re Lalla Suit No S-306 of 1993, decided 2 February 1996, H Ct
Trinidad and Tobago
• R v Board of Supervision ex p Ferguson (1934) 2 JLR 94
• Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC
[1977] AC 1014
• E v Home Secretary [2004] EWCA Civ 49

3
 Errors of Law
• R v Fulham etc Rent Tribunal ex p Phillippe [1950] 2 All ER 211
• Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1962] 2 AC 147
• Pearlman v Harrow School Governors [1979] QB 56
• South East Asia Fire Bricks Sdn v Non-Metallic Mineral Products
Manufacturing Employees Union [1981] AC 363
• Re Racal Communications Ltd reported as Re a Company [1981] AC
374
• O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
• Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143
• Lumba and Mighty v Home Secretary [2011] UKSC 12
• R v Hull University Visitor ex p Page [1993] AC 682

F. REASONS FOR DECISION

• R v Licensing Authority for the Western Area ex p L.S. Panton Ltd

(1970) 15 WIR 390
• Re Errol Niles (No. 2) BB 2003 CA 16
• Alexander v Land Surveyors Board of Jamaica JM 2009 CA 54
• Hernandez v Attorney General of Jamaica JM 2006 SC 87
• Marshall v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] UKPC 4

G. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

• Barbados Administrative Justice Act 1980

• Guyana Judicial Review Act 2010
• Trinidad and Tobago Judicial Review Act 2000
• Sparman v Greaves BB 2004 HC 21
• Polo v Public Service Commission TT 2003 HC 32

4
 H. TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

1. Examine the statutory grounds for judicial review in any two

relevant jurisdictions.

2. With reference to at least one case of your choice, discuss each of

the following:
a. Improper purposes
b. Irrelevant considerations
c. Fettering discretion
d. Improper delegation of powers
e. Duty to state reasons
f. Unreasonableness

3. Discuss the court’s treatment of errors of fact as a ground for judicial

review.

4. Discuss the effect that Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation

Commission [1962] 2 AC 147 has had on the treatment of errors of
law as a ground for judicial review.
END