Two stage test for invalidating a law australia city professional dating london
This case gives rise to interesting questions about justiciability, judicial deference and the scope of judicial review.Here, however, I wish to focus on the confusing yet common way in which the court used ‘rationality’ as ground of judicial review.The court emphasised that ‘the only legal error which is alleged to have been committed is founded on the public law doctrine of irrationality’ and that rationality refers to the decision-making process, and in our case – the duty to take into account all relevant considerations (para 57).The problem is that not taking all relevant considerations into account is a distinct, well-established ground of judicial review in public law. (hereinafter CAAT), the Court of Appeal invalidated the UK government’s decision to grant licences for the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen.
Instrumental rationality is in fact part of the principle of proportionality.This approach, albeit within a specific context, was taken by the Supreme Court’s in its decision in (2015), according to which a demand to base a decision on ‘reasonable grounds’ sets a higher hurdle than ‘mere rationality’ (paras 91, 129).(3) Rationality as a ground of review that focuses on the decision-maker’s ‘mental process’ as opposed to reasonableness review that focuses on the outcome – i.e. See for example Lord Sumption’s view in (2013) that ‘reasonableness is an external, objective standard applied to the outcome of a person’s thoughts or intentions…For this view see also in , where Lord Sumption held that ‘a test of rationality…imports a requirement of good faith, a requirement that there should be some logical connection between the evidence and the ostensible reasons for the decision, and (which will usually amount to the same thing) an absence of arbitrariness, of capriciousness or of reasoning so outrageous in its defiance of logic as to be perverse’ ( (2018), especially by Lord Carnwath and Lord Sumption who asserted that it is irrational to treat like cases differently – if there is no ‘objective justification’ for the different treatment .