Introduction
Judicial review checks the lawfulness of public body decisions, not their correctness. In R v Hillingdon LBC, Ex parte Puhlhofer [1986] AC 484, the House of Lords defined strict boundaries for reviewing factual mistakes, stating courts cannot re-evaluate evidence or substitute their own views for the decision-maker’s. This rule reflects the separation of powers, confining courts to assessing the legality of decisions, not their factual accuracy. The Wednesbury unreasonableness test sets the bar, requiring decisions to be plainly illogical for court intervention. The House of Lords in Puhlhofer established that courts may only act on factual errors if the decision lacks any factual basis or is clearly illogical.
The Facts of Puhlhofer
The Puhlhofer family, needing housing aid, stayed in temporary accommodation deemed unsuitable by Hillingdon London Borough Council. They argued the Council’s refusal to provide permanent housing was wrong, claiming they met the definition of “homeless” under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. The Council concluded they were not homeless because they had accommodation, even if temporary and substandard.
The House of Lords Decision
The House of Lords upheld the Council’s decision. Lord Brightman, in the leading judgment, emphasized the distinction between reviewing legal and factual matters. He stated courts cannot overturn factual findings unless there is no evidence or the decision is plainly illogical. The key issue was whether the temporary housing qualified as housing, not its quality. The House of Lords found the Council’s interpretation of “homeless” was legally reasonable. Poor housing conditions alone did not render the decision unlawful.
The Limited Approach to Factual Error
Puhlhofer confirms courts may only intervene in factual errors if the decision’s basis is so flawed it becomes illegal. This approach acknowledges the authority Parliament grants public bodies. Judicial review ensures decisions follow legal procedures, not re-examining facts.
Impact on Later Cases
Puhlhofer has significantly influenced later judicial review cases involving factual disputes. It is frequently cited to support deference to decision-makers on factual issues. Courts rarely overturn decisions based solely on differing factual interpretations unless evidence is absent or conclusions illogical. Cases like R (A) v Croydon LBC [2009] UKSC 8 have applied Puhlhofer’s principles while addressing related issues like vulnerability.
Comparing Puhlhofer to Other Review Grounds
While Puhlhofer restricts factual error challenges, other judicial review grounds remain available. Decisions can still be challenged for legal errors, procedural faults, or irrationality. Puhlhofer specifically limits challenges focused on factual accuracy. For example, misinterpreting a statute or ignoring evidence may justify review regardless of factual disputes.
Conclusion
R v Hillingdon LBC, Ex parte Puhlhofer remains central to administrative law, defining how courts handle factual errors in judicial review. The House of Lords required a total absence of evidence or clear illogic for intervention, respecting decision-makers’ authority over facts. While Puhlhofer limits factual challenges, other review grounds ensure unlawful decisions can still be contested. The case sets key boundaries, ensuring courts stay within their constitutional role by focusing on legality over factual reassessment. This principle continues to shape judicial review, maintaining the balance between courts and executive bodies.
