Introduction
Error of law forms a main basis for judicial review of administrative decisions. It occurs when a decision-maker wrongly interprets or applies a statutory provision, or acts against legal principles. This rule ensures public bodies act within their legal authority, preventing actions that violate the law. Showing an error of law requires proving the decision-maker misunderstood or misused the legal framework, making the decision invalid. This article will explain the types of error of law, how to prove it, and its effect on judicial review cases.
Jurisdictional Error and Error of Law
A key difference among errors of law is between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors. Jurisdictional error happens when a decision-maker goes beyond their legal authority. This includes misreading the scope of their power or acting outside legal limits. Non-jurisdictional errors involve mistakes in applying the law within proper authority. The difference matters because jurisdictional errors may make a decision legally void. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 reduced this distinction, proposing all legal errors could overturn a decision.
Identifying Errors of Law: Types and Examples
Errors of law may appear in several ways. One type is misreading statutory terms. For example, in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27, the House of Lords decided whether “family” under the Rent Act 1977 included same-sex partners, needing detailed study of statutory intent. R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2015] UKSC 28 involved mistakes in using EU air quality rules. Errors may also come from ignoring relevant legal factors, relying on unrelated factors, or using incorrect facts that twist legal application.
Proving an Error of Law: Evidence Needed
To prove an error of law, evidence must show the decision-maker’s legal analysis was incorrect. This could include past court decisions, laws, or legal writings supporting a different view. Courts check whether the decision-maker’s legal reasoning was clearly flawed. Review standards vary from full accuracy checks to judging if the decision was reasonable. Cases like Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 set the Wednesbury test for decisions so illogical that no reasonable body would make them, often used in error of law challenges.
The Role of Precedent and Legal Interpretation
Precedent is central to finding errors of law. Courts must follow binding rulings from higher courts on similar issues. If a decision-maker ignores such precedent without cause, this may count as an error. Rules of statutory interpretation—like the literal, golden, and mischief rules—help courts determine legislative intent.
Consequences of an Error of Law
If a court finds an error of law, it may cancel the decision. The case might be sent back for review with correct legal direction. In some instances, the court may decide the issue itself. Remedies depend on the error’s seriousness and the relevant legal structure.
Conclusion
Error of law protects against illegal administrative actions. By requiring correct legal use, judicial review ensures lawful authority and defends individual rights. Knowing the types of errors, how to show them, and their results is key to managing judicial review cases. Decisions like Anisminic, Fitzpatrick, ClientEarth, and Wednesbury set fundamental rules. Changes in legal analysis and review standards require ongoing study of these rules in specific situations.
