Abstract
Abstract When an applicant for judicial review succeeds in demonstrating that an administrative decision was unlawful because it breached the principles of institutional structures, procedural fairness or substantive review, the court must then decide whether to grant a remedy. This Chapter first discusses the nature of the remedies available to a reviewing court, explaining how the different characteristics of the so-called ‘prerogative writs’ and their successors can be understood in terms of the values of individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy. It highlights how judges’ choices whether to issue a remedy and how to structure a remedy can also be understood as being influenced by these values. The chapter then addresses several aspects of judicial discretion not to grant a remedy and the ability to sever problematic aspects of a decision, again demonstrating the influence of administrative law values.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
