Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ Case)
Rule established
Three grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety. Prerogative powers are subject to judicial review. Legitimate expectation recognized.
Facts
- GCHQ employees had historically been consulted on changes to employment conditions
- PM (Minister for Civil Service) issued instruction banning trade union membership at GCHQ citing national security
- No prior consultation with trade unions: departure from established practice
- Unions challenged on grounds that prerogative power is not reviewable and that legitimate expectation of consultation was defeated
Issues
- Is a prerogative power subject to judicial review?
- What are the grounds on which administrative decisions may be judicially reviewed?
- Did the workers have a legitimate expectation of prior consultation?
Held
- Prerogative powers ARE subject to judicial review: the source of power (statute vs. prerogative) is irrelevant; what matters is the nature of the power
- Lord Diplock classified grounds of review: (a) Illegality: authority misunderstood the law governing the decision; (b) Irrationality: decision so outrageous in defiance of logic that no sensible person could have arrived at it; (c) Procedural impropriety: failure to comply with procedural rules or common law fairness
- Employees had legitimate expectation of consultation (based on established practice)
- BUT national security overrode the expectation on the facts: government's security assessment not reviewable
- Challenge failed on merits but legal principles established are landmark
Ratio Decidendi
Judicial review examines all exercises of public power regardless of source (statutory or prerogative). The three grounds provide a comprehensive framework: (1) Illegality: the decision-maker must understand the law governing the decision and act within it; (2) Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): a decision so outrageous that no sensible person could have arrived at it; (3) Procedural impropriety: failure to comply with procedural rules or common law fairness. Legitimate expectation (from past practice or promise) creates procedural right to consultation before change; however, overriding considerations (national security) can defeat the expectation.
How to use it in an exam
- The GCHQ case is the foundational authority for the three grounds of judicial review in English and Indian administrative law. In any judicial review question: open with Lord Diplock's three grounds. Also the source of the modern legitimate expectation doctrine.
- Key line (Lord Diplock): "Judicial review has developed to a stage today when one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review."
- In India: applied via Om Kumar (irrationality/proportionality) and numerous High Court decisions.
Source
Source: Wade, Administrative Law; De Smith, Judicial Review
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.