1. Claim possible in JR
   1. Public law issues/ amenability
   2. Sufficient standing/ victim
   3. time limit
   4. ouster clauses
2. Grounds for JR
   1. Domestic Grounds
      1. Illegality
         1. as defined in CCSU v Minister for Civil Service: failure by a decision maker to undertand correctly and give effect to the law that regulates his decision -making powers.
            1. acting w/o legal authority:.
            2. public authorities cannot act w/o legal authority: ex p Mc Carthy and Stone.
            3. rules against delegation
            4. GENERAL RULE that decision-making powers once given by Parliament cannot be further delegated: Vine v National Dock Labour Board and R v DPP (1988).
            5. EXCEPTION:
            6. Carltona principle: Where government Ministers sub-delegating decision making powers to civil servants in their departments provides an exception: under the convention of ministerial responsibility, government Ministers are ultimately responsible to Parliament for their departments, there is an expectation they act through their civil servants in taking even major decisions!!!
            7. Local Government Act 1972: s 101 LGA 1972 which allows local authorities to discharge their functions by sub-/committees or through an officer or another local authority provided they make formal resolution to do so.
            8. fettering of discretion
            9. GENERAL PRINCIPLE
            10. If Parliament provides a public body with a discretionary power, the courts will not permit that body to restrict/ fetter such discretion
            11. acting under dictation of another person or body
            12. Lavender & Sons v Minister of Housing [1970]
            13. formulating a general policy as to the exercise of discretion
            14. British Oxygen v Minister of Technology
            15. using powers for improper/ unauthorised use
            16. Public authorities will be acting illegally if they use their powers for an improper/ unauthorised use.
            17. Congreve v Home Office [1976]
            18. dual purpose
            19. where public authority arrives at a decision based on more than one consideration, one which is relevant to the purpose, the other which is irrelevant.
            20. either (not yet established which test takes precedence)
            21. Westminster Corporation v LNWR [1905]
            22. where there are dual purposes behind a decision, provided the permitted/ authorised purpose is the primary one, the the decision is not ultra vires and should stand.
            23. R v ILEA, ex p Westminster City Council [1986]
            24. proposed test is: was the authority pursuing an unauthorised purpose, which materially influenced the making of its decision?
            25. taking account of irrelevant considerations/ failing to take account of relevant considerations
            26. GENERAL RULE
            27. Public authority must both disregard irrelevant considerations and take into account relevant considerations when exercising its powers: Roberts v Hopwod [1925] and Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968].
            28. errors of law/ fact
            29. GENERAL RULE
            30. Errors of law which affect a decision will always be susceptible to judicial review under Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969].
            31. Error of law made the FCC's decision not just wrong nut outside of its jurisdiction!
      2. Irrationality
      3. Procedural Impropriety
   2. European Grounds
      1. Breach of ECHR
      2. Breach of EC Law
3. Remedies
   1. Public Law
   2. Private Law