Executive Decision-Making and the Courts: Revisiting the Origins of Modern Judicial Review

In this book, leading experts from across the common law world assess the impact of four seminal House of Lords judgments decided in the 1960s: Ridge v Baldwin, Padfeld v Minister of Agriculture, Conway v Rimmer, and Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission. The ‘Quartet’ is generally acknowledged to have marked a turning point in the development of court-centred administrative law, and can be understood as a 'formative moment' in the emergence of modern judicial review. These cases are examined not only in terms of the points each case decided, and their contribution to administrative law doctrine, but also in terms of the underlying conception of the tasks of administrative law implicit in the Quartet. By doing so, the book sheds new light on both the complex processes through which the modern system of judicial review emerged and the constitutional choices that are implicit in its jurisprudence. It further reflects upon the implications of these historical processes for how the achievements, failings and limitations of the common law in reviewing actions of the executive can be evaluated.

Table of Contents:
PART I SETTING THE SCENE 1. Introduction: Judicial Review and the Quartet TT Arvind, University of York, UK, Richard Kirkham, University of Sheffield, UK, Daithí Mac Síthigh, Queen’s University Belfast, UK and Lindsay Stirton, University of Sussex, UK 2. Lord Reid: The Judge as Law Maker? Robert Reed, Lord Reed of Allermuir, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom PART II THE QUARTET IN CONTEXT 3. Ridge v Baldwin: Executive and Judicial Approaches to Administrative Law Before and During the Quartet Years Robert Thomas, University of Manchester, UK 4. Judges and Parliamentary Democracy: The Lessons of Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Maurice Sunkin, University of Essex, UK 5. Legitimacy and the Courts: The Forgotten Story of Conway v Rimmer TT Arvind, University of York, UK and Lindsay Stirton, University of Sussex, UK 6. Anisminic in Retrospect David Feldman, University of Cambridge, UK PART III THE LEGACY OF THE QUARTET 7. Plus ça Change? An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Review in Modern Administrative Law Sarah Nason, Prifysgol Bangor University, UK 8. The Reawakening of Common Law Rights: Are they Still ‘Suitable for the Winning of Freedom in the New Age’? Paul Bowen QC, Brick Court Chambers, UK 9. Beyond the End of Ouster Clause History? Joe Tomlinson, University of York, UK PART IV THE QUARTET OUTSIDE ENGLAND 10. Administrative Law and the Administrative Court for – or in – Wales David C Gardner, No5 Barristers’ Chambers, Bristol, UK 11. The Rule of Law against Judicial Review? The Quartet in Scots Administrative Law Paul F Scott, University of Glasgow, UK 12. The Quartet Plus Two: Judicial Review in Northern Ireland Gordon Anthony, Queen’s University Belfast, UK PART V COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON THE QUARTET 13. Israeli Administrative Law and the Quartet – One Step Ahead Daphne Barak-Erez, Tel Aviv University, Israel 14. Importation and Indigeneity: The Quartet in New Zealand Administrative Law Dean R Knight, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand 15. The Quartet in the New Commonwealth Peter Cane, University of Cambridge, UK PART VI THE QUARTET IN THEORY, PRACTICE AND HISTORY 16. The Quartet Cases Compared Stephen Bailey, University of Nottingham, UK 17. ‘Judicial Power’ and Political Power: Reflections in Light of the Quartet Alexander Latham-Gambi, Swansea University, UK 18. Strategic Judging: Lessons from the Reid Era of Judicial Decision-Making Richard Kirkham, University of Sheffield, UK and Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, University of York, UK PART VII CONCLUSION 19. The Real Argument about Judicial Review TT Arvind, University of York, UK, Richard Kirkham, University of Sheffield, UK, Daithí Mac Síthigh, Queen’s University Belfast, UK and Lindsay Stirton, University of Sussex, UK

About the Author :
TT Arvind is Professor of Law at the University of York, UK. Richard Kirkham is Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield, UK. Daithí Mac Síthigh is Professor of Law and Innovation at Queen's University Belfast, UK. Lindsay Stirton is Professor of Public Law at the University of Sussex, UK.

Review :
The essays make fascinating reading for anyone concerned with the constitutional relations between the legislature, executive and judiciary, and the vexed question as to whether judges are too deferential to the assessments of the executive or improperly arrogating decision-making to themselves contrary to the wishes of Parliament.