“House of Lords sets limits on royal prerogative power in national security context”
The Minister for the Civil Service used royal prerogative powers to ban trade union membership at Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) without prior consultation with the affected trade unions. The Council of Civil Service Unions challenged this decision, arguing they had a legitimate expectation to be consulted before such changes were implemented.
Whether the exercise of royal prerogative powers is subject to judicial review, and whether there was a duty to consult trade unions before banning union membership at GCHQ on national security grounds.
The appeal was dismissed. While prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review in principle, national security considerations justified both the decision and the lack of prior consultation in this case.
This landmark case fundamentally changed administrative law by establishing that prerogative powers are generally subject to judicial review, while recognizing national security as an area largely immune from judicial scrutiny.
You're reading the free summary of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.