The mediation of the balance between vigilance and restraint is a fundamental feature of judicial review of administrative action in the Anglo-Commonwealth. This balance is realised through the modulation of the depth of scrutiny when reviewing the decisions of ministers, public bodies and officials. While variability is ubiquitous, it takes different shapes and forms. Dean R. Knight explores the main shapes and forms employed in judicial review in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand over the last fifty years. Four schemata are drawn from the case law and taken back to conceptual foundations, exposing their commonality and differences, and each approach is evaluated. This detailed methodology provides a sound basis for decisions and debates about how variability should be brought to individual cases and will be of great value to legal scholars, judges and practitioners interested in judicial review.

Explores how courts vary the depth of scrutiny in judicial review and the virtues of different approaches.

Five essays examine the concept of "judicial review" from a historical perspective. The term is defined as the power and duty of a court to disregard ultra vires legislative acts.

In this book, the author presents a new interpretation of the origin of judicial review. She traces the development of judicial review from American independence through the tenure of John Marshall as Chief Justice, showing that Marshall's role was far more innovative and decisive than has yet been recognized. According to the author all support for judicial review before Marshall contemplated a fundamentally different practice from that which we know today. Marshall did not simply reinforce or extend ideas already accepted but, in superficially minor and disguised ways, effected a radical transformation in the nature of the constitution and the judicial relationship to it.

Explores the English origins of the principles of judicial review in common law jurisdictions and autochthonous pressures for their adaptation.

Research on comparative administrative law, in contrast to comparative constitutional law, remains largely underdeveloped. This book plugs that gap. It considers how a wide range of common law systems have received and adapted English common law to the needs of their own socio-political context. Readers will be given complex insights into a wide range of common law systems of administrative law, which they may not otherwise have access to given how difficult it would be to research all of the systems covered in the volume single-handedly. The book covers Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Israel, South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, India, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. Comparative public lawyers will have a much greater range of common law models of administrative law - either to pursue conversations about their own common law system or to sophisticate their comparison of their system (civil law or otherwise) with common law systems.

That non-statutory executive powers are subject to judicial review is beyond doubt. But current judicial practice challenges prevailing theories of judicial review and raises a host of questions about the nature of official power and action. This is particularly the case for official powers not associated with the Royal Prerogative, which have been argued to comprise a “third source” of governmental authority. Looking at non-statutory powers directly, rather than incidentally, stirs up the intense but ultimately inconclusive debate about the conceptual basis of judicial review in English law. This provocative book argues that modern judges and scholars have neglected the very concepts necessary to understand the supervisory jurisdiction and that the law has become more complex than it needs to be. If we start from the concept of office and official action, rather than grand ideas about parliamentary sovereignty and the courts, the central questions answer themselves.