Which are grounds for judicial review?

Which are grounds for judicial review?

• A. Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
• B. Proportionality only
• C. Public interest
• D. Jurisdiction and remedy

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is the three main bases on which a public decision can be challenged through judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Illegality means the decision maker acted beyond their legal powers or misapplied the law, so the decision is outside the authority conferred by statute or public law. Irrationality, also called Wednesbury unreasonableness, is when the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have arrived at it. Procedural impropriety covers failures in the process—breaches of natural justice, bias, or failure to follow statutory procedures or to take into account relevant considerations. Why this set is the best answer is that these three cover the core ways a court will review how a decision was made, not just what was decided. The other options don’t fit as standalone grounds: proportionality is a test used in some rights-based reviews but isn’t listed as a general ground of judicial review here; public interest describes a factor a decision-maker may weigh rather than a formal ground for challenge; and jurisdiction and remedy relate to whether the decision was within power and what remedy might be awarded, rather than independent grounds for review.

The idea being tested is the three main bases on which a public decision can be challenged through judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Illegality means the decision maker acted beyond their legal powers or misapplied the law, so the decision is outside the authority conferred by statute or public law. Irrationality, also called Wednesbury unreasonableness, is when the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have arrived at it. Procedural impropriety covers failures in the process—breaches of natural justice, bias, or failure to follow statutory procedures or to take into account relevant considerations.

Why this set is the best answer is that these three cover the core ways a court will review how a decision was made, not just what was decided. The other options don’t fit as standalone grounds: proportionality is a test used in some rights-based reviews but isn’t listed as a general ground of judicial review here; public interest describes a factor a decision-maker may weigh rather than a formal ground for challenge; and jurisdiction and remedy relate to whether the decision was within power and what remedy might be awarded, rather than independent grounds for review.