A Scottish judicial review investigates the decision to see if it was properly arrived at: “Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. I t may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decision itself it may be found to be perverse or irrational, or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision- maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in a case of review, as distinct from ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of the evidence.”1 Major kudos to Joseph Summers who tracked down this critical document. jonathanmitchell.info/uploads/Judicialreview.pdf
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:45:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015