The GCHQ case established that government prerogative powers are subject to judicial review, but national security concerns can exclude procedural fairness requirements. This landmark decision expanded judicial oversight of executive power while recognizing legitimate security limitations.

This landmark case established that bodies exercising public functions can be subject to judicial review even if they lack statutory authority or government appointment. The Court of Appeal held that the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, despite being a self-regulating private body, could be judicially reviewed because it exercised public law functions.

This landmark case established that courts can review decisions of administrative bodies even when a statute appears to exclude judicial review through an 'ouster clause'. The House of Lords held that if a tribunal makes an error of law going to its jurisdiction, its decision is a nullity and the ouster clause cannot protect it from judicial review.

House of Lords established that courts should apply objective review when determining jurisdictional facts in immigration cases, particularly regarding illegal entry status.

Pre-HRA courts cannot directly apply European Convention rights in judicial review.

The House of Lords set aside its earlier decision due to Lord Hoffmann's undisclosed connection to Amnesty International, establishing strict rules about judicial bias and the appearance of justice.

Derek Bentley was hanged in 1953 for murder. His family sought judicial review of the Home Secretary's refusal to grant a posthumous pardon. The Court of Appeal held that while the prerogative of mercy is not generally justiciable, the court could grant declaratory relief where the Home Secretary had failed to recognize the scope of the prerogative or applied wrong principles.

This case established the famous 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' test for judicial review of administrative decisions. It set the standard that courts can only overturn administrative decisions if they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached them.

House of Lords held that individuals can challenge the vires of bye-laws and subordinate legislation as a defence in criminal proceedings, not requiring separate judicial review proceedings.

Four prisoners challenged decisions of a prison board of visitors by writ and originating summons rather than judicial review. The House of Lords held this was an abuse of process. Where the sole aim is to challenge a public law decision, judicial review is the exclusive procedure, protecting public bodies from unmeritorious claims.

This landmark administrative law case established that Ministers cannot refuse to exercise statutory powers for improper purposes or irrelevant considerations. The House of Lords held that the Minister's refusal to refer a complaint to a committee was unlawful because it was based on policy considerations rather than the statutory criteria.

Courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament regardless of international law breaches.

The National Federation of Self-Employed sought judicial review of the Inland Revenue's decision to grant amnesty to casual workers in the Fleet Street printing industry. The House of Lords held the Federation lacked sufficient interest (standing) to challenge the Revenue's tax enforcement decisions. The court established that standing must be assessed in relation to the specific legal duty allegedly breached.

Ratification of Maastricht Treaty a non-justiciable matter of high policy.

The Court of Appeal held that a health authority's decision to close a NHS facility and relocate disabled residents breached legitimate expectations created by previous promises. This landmark case established important principles about when public bodies can resile from commitments made to individuals.

Home Secretary cannot abuse statutory powers to punish lawful licence purchases

Article 6 includes implied right of access to courts, not just fair procedures.

Ministers cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate Parliament's statutory scheme

Attorney General cannot veto court orders on freedom of information disclosure

Press freedom restrictions must be proportionate and temporary to comply with Article 10 ECHR.

Ministers cannot adopt blanket policies that fetter discretionary statutory powers.

Crown and ministers can be held in contempt of court

Vague binding over orders violate Article 10 freedom of expression requirements.