United Kingdom administrative law
Administrative law in|
common law jurisdictions
Administrative law in|
civil law jurisdictions
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. 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."
- 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  AC 179
- Local Government Board v Arlidge  AC 120
- Moss Empires Ltd v Glasgow Assessor 1917 SC (HL)
- (1927) Cmd 2842
- Ridge v Baldwin  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  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 , 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.
Freedom of Information
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
- Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
- Inquiries Act 2005
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 is a procedure in English law whereby courts supervise the exercise of power, often of a public body. A person who feels that an exercise power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an [ [injunction]] upon the public body.
When creating a public body, legislation will often define duties, limits of power, and prescribe the reasoning a body must use to make decisions. These provisions provide a means for a decision to be found unlawful. Alternatively, the UK Government has accepted the European Convention of Human Rights and stated that all law must be consistent with it.
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, but may still argue that a body did not follow the Government's act.
- KD Ewing and AW Bradley, Constitutional and Administrative Law (2011) ch 27, 605
- The Honourable Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey (17 October 2010). "Administrative Law and Administrative Courts in the United Kingdom: An Overview" (PDF). Retrieved 15 November 2014.
- Sir Robin Cooke, quoted in R(Baker) v Devon CC  1 All ER 73, 88
- 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)