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.

UK courts cannot review the validity of Acts of Parliament, even when they allegedly breach international obligations or affect other countries' constitutional arrangements.

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.

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 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.

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.

Government agents broke into John Entick's house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The court ruled this was unlawful, establishing that government power must have legal authority and that every invasion of private property must be justified by law.

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.

House of Lords held that local authorities must act reasonably and cannot ignore their fiduciary duty to ratepayers when setting wages, establishing early principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Courts must objectively determine jurisdictional facts in immigration detention cases.

This case established when prisoners have a right to an oral hearing before the Parole Board under common law fairness principles and Article 5(4) ECHR. The Supreme Court clarified that procedural fairness requires consideration of individual circumstances, not blanket policies denying hearings.

House of Lords held that GLC's 'Fares Fair' policy of subsidising public transport through supplementary rates was ultra vires as it breached fiduciary duty to ratepayers.

Judges must be independent and appear independent; undisclosed interests invalidate judicial decisions.

This early case established that the Crown cannot create new crimes or alter the law by proclamation alone, requiring parliamentary consent for changes to the common law.

The Case of Proclamations established that the King cannot create new law or change existing law through royal proclamation alone. This landmark case confirmed that royal prerogative powers are limited and cannot override statute or common law without parliamentary consent.

The House of Lords established that courts cannot inquire into Parliament's internal procedures when passing Acts, reinforcing the enrolled bill rule and parliamentary sovereignty.

Home Secretary cannot abuse statutory powers to punish lawful licence purchases

The House of Lords established the fundamental principle that judges must not have any financial interest in cases they decide, creating the rule against pecuniary bias.

Court of Common Pleas established that natural justice requires a hearing before a person is deprived of their property or rights, even where not expressly required by statute.

When Parliament provides a statutory scheme for government action, ministers cannot bypass it by relying on broader prerogative powers.

Court of Appeal established the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done.

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

The Court of Appeal held that later Acts of Parliament impliedly repeal earlier conflicting provisions, establishing the doctrine of implied repeal in parliamentary sovereignty.

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

John MacCormick challenged the Queen's title as 'Elizabeth II' in Scotland, arguing Elizabeth I never reigned there. The Court of Session held that while courts cannot question the validity of Acts of Parliament, certain constitutional arrangements may be justiciable, though this particular claim failed.

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.

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

Ministers cannot adopt blanket policies that fetter discretionary statutory powers.

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

Ministers cannot refuse to exercise statutory powers for improper purposes

National security cannot justify deportation where real risk of torture exists.

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.

Attorney General cannot veto court orders on freedom of information disclosure

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.

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

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

Crown and ministers can be held in contempt of court