Around the common law world, the law of judicial review of administrative action has changed dramatically in recent decades, accelerating a centuries-long process of incremental evolution. This book offers a fresh framework for understanding the core features of contemporary administrative law. Through comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand, the author develops an interpretive approach by reference to four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy, and decisional autonomy. The interaction of this plurality of values explains the structure of the vast field of judicial review of administrative action: institutional structures, procedural fairness, substantive review, remedies, restrictions on remedies, and the scope of judicial review. Addressing this wide array of subjects in detail, the book demonstrates how a pluralist approach, with the values being employed in a complementary and balanced fashion, can enhance our understanding of administrative law. Furthermore, such an approach can guide the future development of the law of judicial review of administrative action, a point illustrated by a careful analysis of the unsettled doctrinal area of legitimate expectation. The book closes by arguing that the author's values-based, pluralist framework supports the legitimacy of contemporary administrative law which, although sometimes called into question, facilitates the flourishing of individuals, of public administration, and of the liberal democratic system.
This book offers a new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.
