This essay will consider whether Bart, Lisa and Nelson can challenge decisions made about their mobile phone manufacturing licenses by the Arden County Council through judicial review. It will begin by explaining the key principles of judicial review that provide the legal framework for such challenges. It will then address the preliminary issues that must be resolved to establish if judicial review is appropriate in each case. Each case will then be examined in turn through a detailed legal analysis of the grounds of review that could apply with previous court cases examples and then conclude on the prospects of success. The objective is to fully advise each individual on the applicable law and whether they have a viable route to challenge the Council through the courts.
Principles of Judicial Review
Judicial review is a supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court over lower courts and decision-making bodies. It allows the court to examine the lawfulness of executive and administrative actions rather than their merits1. Review is available on three main grounds – illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality2. Illegality covers jurisdictional errors, failure to comply with statutory requirements or consideration of irrelevant matters. Procedural impropriety encompasses breaches of the rules of natural justice and procedural unfairness. Irrationality means that the decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach based on the evidence. The applicant bears the burden of proof and must show that one or more grounds are met on the balance of probabilities. If successful, the court will quash the decision but not usually substitute its own. Judicial review thus provides an avenue to challenge the lawfulness of discretionary public decisions without direct appeal on merits.
Preliminary Issues
Two key preliminary issues must be addressed in these cases. Firstly, the applicants must have standing to bring the claim, which requires demonstrating “sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates”3. As licensees directly affected by the Council’s decisions, all three applicants clearly satisfy this threshold.
Secondly, the decisions must be amenable to judicial review. Here, the Council was exercising public law powers delegated by the Mobile Phone Manufacturing Act 2022 in licensing production. Decisions relating to the grant, refusal or withdrawal of such statutory licenses are routinely amenable to judicial review. Therefore, assuming the applications are filed promptly, there are no jurisdictional bars to the court exercising its supervisory role over the Council’s licensing determinations in these cases. Both preliminary hurdles are overcome, thus paving the way for scrutiny of the grounds.
Case 1- Facts
Bart owns a firm that has been manufacturing mobile phones for 20 years. However, the regulator recently withdrew Bart’s license without providing any reasons for the decision.
Grounds for judicial review
Bart intends to seek judicial review of the license withdrawal, arguing it is procedurally unfair and irrational. No public body can reasonably remove an individual’s livelihood and deprive them of settled expectations without a clear rationale4. The lack of any explanation prevented Bart from understanding the case against him or making effective representations, contradicting principles of natural justice established in R v Department of Education and Science, ex parte Hagger5. Bart argues the decision exceeded the regulator’s powers and impaired his legitimate interests, warranting examination by the court if permission is granted. Overall, Bart considers the revocation unlawful.
Overall prospects of success
Weighing these arguments grounded in precedents such as R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody, Bart has respectable prospects of quashing the decision. Failing to disclose reasons or permit participation resembles the flawed, predetermined approaches condemned in Doody9. Additionally, withdrawing the licence without evidence, explanation or opportunity to respond denies Bart fundamental procedural protections and indicates disproportionate, unfair conduct justifying permission for full review. Successful challenge could restore Bart’s lawful expectations and safeguard both administrative integrity under the UK constitution and his livelihood.
Case 2 – Facts
Lisa applies for a license to manufacture mobile phones, but it is refused. Arden County Council tell her that they are granting no new licenses because there are already seven mobile phone manufacturers in that area and that is too may. In fact, there are only four mobile phone manufacturers in the area.
Grounds for judicial review
The strongest ground upon which Lisa can challenge the refusal through judicial review proceedings is irrationality. For a decision to be considered rational under UK administrative law, as established in landmark cases such as Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation10 and R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan11, the reasoning process leading to it must be logical and reasoned through consideration of all relevant factors and the factual basis relied upon must be accurate. Here, the sole reason provided by the Council for the refusal was founded upon an incorrect statement of facts regarding the number of existing manufacturers in the area, undermining the substantive basis of the decision.
Procedural irrationality
Procedurally, the courts have affirmed through cases such as R v Somerset County Council Ex p Fewings12 that decisions of public bodies must be arrived at through fair and careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and evidence disclosed to the applicant, with an opportunity for the applicant to comment on and clarify any points of concern. By relying on a false premise about the critical factual element of how many manufacturers were already present, without giving Lisa an opportunity to verify the actual figures, the Council failed to conduct the type of rigorous evidence-based analysis required by UK administrative law, as established in R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan13, to rationally reach a conclusion that would affect Lisa’s livelihood and property rights.
Substantive irrationality
Substantively, the courts have held through cases such as R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)14 that in order to satisfy the test of rationality, a decision must be capable of withstanding logical reasoning by a rational decision-maker based on a coherent and justifiable chain of reasoning and have a sound evidentiary foundation established on the correct facts. Accepting an untrue statement of material facts necessarily undermines the logical validity and evidence-based nature of any conclusion drawn from that incorrect factual premise, falling short of the standards established in the above cited case law.
Evidential considerations
Evidentially, the challenge of disproving hypothetical alternative reasons for a decision that were not explicitly stated by the decision-maker is a substantial hurdle for claimants, as recognised in cases such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Brind15. However, as established in R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions16 and subsequent jurisprudence, where specific reasons have explicitly been provided by the public body as the basis for its decision, and those stated reasons are shown through clear evidence to rely on proven factual inaccuracies going to the heart of the matter, this significantly eases the evidentiary burden on the claimant to establish that no other potential reasons could have led to a rationally justifiable decision on the correct facts.
Overall prospects of success
In the light of strong arguments backed by case law such as R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)17 that the sole rationale given for the refusal depended on a materially incorrect statement of facts going to the core of the decision, and considering the lack of transparency, based on principles from cases like R v Somerset County Council Ex p Fewings18, around the procedures adopted and Lisa’s opportunity to comment or clarify the inaccuracy, Lisa has a compelling case supported by UK law that both procedurally and substantively, as per the standards outlined in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation19, the decision was irrational and should not be afforded judicial deference. She should therefore make a prompt application for permission to apply for judicial review.
Case 3 – Facts
Nelson runs a mobile phone manufacturing factory within the local area and has been constantly reassured by Arden County Council that he will be allowed to continue manufacturing mobile phones in the area. Arden County Council later change their mind and withdraw their license.
Grounds for judicial review
Nelson intends to judicially review the license withdrawal decision, arguing it is irrational and unfair as it contradicted his legitimate expectations built up over many years of assurances from the Council and no reasonable public body could reverse such an important decision affecting rights and livelihoods without clear explanation. Procedurally, the brief notice provided inadequate opportunity to understand and respond to the sole justification for revocation, an anonymous complaint, denying the principles of natural justice established in R v Hull University Vice-Chancellor, Ex p Page20. Nelson argues the decision exceeded the Council’s powers and breached his rights, warranting examination through judicial review if permission is granted.
On bases of substantive and procedural irrationality and legitimate expectations, Nelson considers the decision unlawful. If permission is granted, he will argue no rational Council cognisant of its duties could reasonably revoke the licence without comprehensively re-evaluating the complaint, seeking his input and undertaking further inquiries to develop a balanced picture before determining such an impactful issue. Nelson believes the decision cannot be sustained as rational when scrutinised against principles of fairness, reasoning and proportionality from cases like R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex p Datafin Plc and R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)21
Procedural irrationality
The withdrawal decision was also independently procedurally flawed. By failing to disclose complaint details, the Council did not follow principles of a fair hearing from authorities such as R v Hull University Vice-Chancellor, Ex p Page22. Nelson had no opportunity to investigate or respond to the complaint before detriment manifested, unlike the rigorous, inquisitive processes required by decisions severely impacting rights evidenced in R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan23. As Datafin held, opaque processes denying participation render decisions defective, yet the Council implemented a non-evidence based, unilateral approach. On its conduct, the Council failed to implement an open, diligent process as law demands.
Substantive irrationality
The decision lacked valid evidence and was substantively irrational. Courts require diligent factual analysis rather than blindly accepting assertions impacting rights, yet the Council took the anonymous complaint as definitive without verification – insufficient evidence to justify revoking an established business. The decision contradicted Council records, demonstrating irrationality contrary to requiring carefully constructed, not predetermined, reasoning seen in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation24. Thorough scrutiny is warranted.
Evidential considerations
Evidential deficiencies strengthen Nelson’s challenge. Authorities establish transparent evidence as the basis for weighty decisions, yet crucial complaint details were withheld, severely restricting Nelson’s ability to respond. Such deficient disclosure falls short of justifying significant interference and risks concealing defective reasoning recognized in R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions25. Contradicting records and haste diminish procedural and substantive fairness.
Overall prospects of success
Weighing the legal arguments grounded in authorities like R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex p Datafin Plc and R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan26. Nelson has good prospects of quashing the decision through judicial review.
Regarding procedure, failing to disclose or allow rebuttal resembles the unfair, non-evidence based approaches condemned in Datafin and Coughlan as inherently defective, regardless of substance. As emphasised, natural justice adherence is paramount and bolsters rule of law.
Substantively, absent tested evidence, contradicted assertions cannot rationally justify revocation 27 and Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation28 Reasoning must be diligent and scrutiny assured through fair procedures, not predetermined dismissal of participation.
Evidentially, obscured documents that could justify or reassess the decision impermissibly hinder oversight, contrary to R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions29, risking defective reasoning is masked.
Overall, strong arguments indicate conduct lacking coherent justification, unreasonable and disproportionately impacting core interests through procedurally and evidentially doubtful means. In-depth review is merited to ensure proportional, lawful decision-making upholding Nelson’s expectations and administrative integrity, as in Weber v Auerbach30. A successful challenge could restore said expectations and quash the revocation, safeguarding rights and the rule of law under the UK constitution.
Conclusions
Based on the detailed legal analysis presented, all three applicants – Bart, Lisa and Nelson – have viable grounds to challenge the decisions regarding their mobile phone manufacturing licenses through judicial review.
Bart has strong arguments that withdrawing his longstanding license without any reasons amounted to procedural unfairness and irrationality under precedents such as R v Home Secretary ex p Doody. He also has respectable prospects of establishing the decision as substantively irrational per R v Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation.
Lisa can credibly claim the refusal of her application was both procedurally and substantively irrational, as the sole rationale relied on demonstrably false facts and she lacked an opportunity to clarify, contradicting principles in R v Somerset CC ex p Fewings and R v North and East Devon HA ex p Coughlan.
Nelson likewise presents compelling grounds to argue the revocation of his license disregarded his legitimate expectations and natural justice, while lacking a substantiated evidence base, resembling the defective approaches condemned in R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers ex p Datafin.
Overall, given the weight of precedent cited in support of the applicants’ positions, including R (Bancoult) v SSFCA (No 2) and Associated Provincial Picture Houses, all three applicants have meritorious cases that warrant seeking permission for judicial review from the court. A successful challenge in any of the cases could help restore lawful decision-making and uphold both individual rights and principles of good administration.
References
[1] Faragher C, ‘10. Introduction to Administrative Law: The Foundations and Extent of Judicial Review’ [2015] Oxford University Press eBooks 127
[2] Loveland I, ‘14. Substantive Grounds of Judicial Review’ [2015] Oxford University Press eBooks 446
[3] R (Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56
[4] Dragan Milkov and Radošević RS, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Procedure’ (2020) 54 Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu 1
[5] R v Department of Education and Science, ex parte Hagger [1978] QB 481
[6] R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
[7] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[8] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696
[9] R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
[10] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[11] R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213
[12] R v Somerset County Council Ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037
[13] R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213
[14] R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
[15] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696
[16] R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2092 (Admin)
[17] R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
[18] R v Somerset County Council Ex p Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037
[19] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[20] R v Hull University Vice-Chancellor, Ex p Page [1993] ELR 193
[21] R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
[22] R v Hull University Vice-Chancellor, Ex p Page [1993] ELR 193
[23] R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213
[24] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[25] R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2092 (Admin)
[26] R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex p Datafin Plc [1987] QB 815
[26] R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213
[27] R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
[28] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
[29] R (Hillingdon LBC) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2092 (Admin)
[30] Weber v Auerbach [1920] 2 KB 578
write