Essays On Judicial Review
On the other hand, the housing authority seems to have followed the procedures that had been laid down before them in The Public Housing Act 2010.
They are acting well within their boundaries according to Section 1 of the act, as by re-housing David and Mary to a smaller property, they are ensuring that the supply of public housing is kept to a reasonable level.
The main purpose of Judicial Review is to ensure that public authorities do not act in excess of their powers and this explanation is supported in the following words of Sedley J “the purpose of Judicial Review is to ensure that government is conducted within the Law”.
It could be said that the subject matter of every Judicial Review is a decision made by a person in power, or, the failure of that person to make a decision.
Also the fact that the Local Housing Authority wants to move the couple to a less upmarket area can be seen as being unfair.
The element of fairness demands that a public body must act fairly within its boundaries and should never act so unfairly that it amounts to an abuse in power.
The decision itself does not necessarily have to be right or wrong.The Local Housing authority has also acted in accordance with Section 7, as the legislation outlined here grants them the power to force tenants to move to alternative housing when the house has 2 bedrooms or more yet is occupied by one person only and/or the Local Housing Authority in “its absolute discretion” believes that requiring an individual be re-located would ensure proper management of public housing.In this case, the local housing authority is protected by the language used in the Public Housing Act 2010.It has been heard in past cases that the courts have been advised not to steer clear of the literal interpretation of words used in a piece of legislation.We see evidence of this in R v Judge for City of London Court .
The court has to investigate as to whether there was lawful and fair action taken by the public body when reaching its decision.