The Principle of Legality: The State May Only Act as Empowered by Law

by

Introduction

THIS MUST BE READ IN BROAD CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ON THE SIMPLE PRIMARY SOURCES SHOWING THAT AS PREROGATIVE (THE RIGHT TO GOVERN) DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMON LAW (Affirmed as early as Confirmation of the Charters 1297), IT FOLLOWS ANYTHING DERIVED THROUGH THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE IS BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY RESTRICTED BY THE COMMON LAW, AND THAT INCULES PARLIAMENT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY. IT IS ADMITTED THAT EVEN PRIMARY LEGISLATION IS SUBJECT TO THE TEST OF LAWFULNESS THROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW, THEREBY ADMITTING THAT PARLIAMENT IS NOT CREATOR OF SUPREME LAW. FIRTHER IT IS ADMITTED BY THE JUDICIARY THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED THE MYTH, AND UPHOLD THE THEORY OF PARLIAMENT AS SUPREME CREATOR OF LAW!

In the constitutional architecture of a liberal democracy, a foundational axiom distinguishes it from autocracy: the state is a creature of law and can act only with legal authority. This stands in stark contrast to the legal position of the individual, who is free to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by law.1 The judiciary, as the guardian of the constitution, enforces this fundamental principle through a powerful legal doctrine known as the

Principle of Legality. This principle operates as a comprehensive “legality test,” ensuring that the executive branch of government remains subordinate to the law and does not exercise arbitrary power. The Principle of Legality performs two distinct but complementary functions, which together form the core of judicial scrutiny over executive action.

First, it serves as a substantive check on the existence of power, embodied in the doctrine of ultra vires. This function asks the fundamental question: Does the public body possess the legal power, granted by statute or common law, to perform this action at all?.3 Any action taken “beyond the powers” is a legal nullity.

Second, the principle functions as a sophisticated rule of statutory interpretation. This function addresses a different question: Assuming a power exists, has Parliament used sufficiently clear, express, and unambiguous language to authorize the infringement of fundamental common law rights or constitutional principles?.5 This interpretive lens ensures that rights are not eroded by general or ambiguous legislative provisions, forcing the legislature to confront the political cost of any such encroachment directly.

This analysis of the legality test includes supporting case law. It will begin by examining the constitutional sources of executive power—statute and the common law prerogative—and the inherent limits placed upon them. It will then dissect the two core functions of the legality test. The analysis will first explore the ultra vires doctrine, from its historical genesis in the landmark case of Entick v Carrington to its modern application in policing substantive, procedural, and discretionary errors. Subsequently, the report will investigate the principle’s role as a rule of interpretation, illustrated through a detailed examination of modern UK Supreme Court decisions that have shaped the contemporary understanding of rights protection and executive accountability. To provide a richer, more nuanced understanding, the report will conduct a comparative analysis, contrasting the application of the principle in the United Kingdom with its counterparts in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada, and with the structurally different doctrine of separation of powers in the United States. Finally, the report will detail the practical remedies available through judicial review when the state is found to have acted unlawfully, before offering concluding thoughts on the enduring importance of this cornerstone of public law.

 

Section 1: The Constitutional Foundation: Sources and Limits of Executive Authority

 

1.1 The Asymmetry of Legal Freedom: The State versus The Individual

 

A defining feature of a state governed by the rule of law is the fundamental asymmetry between the legal capacity of the state and that of the individual citizen. Individuals operate under a principle of liberty: they may do anything that is not expressly prohibited by a valid law.1 This concept is enshrined in constitutional documents, such as Panama’s Magna Carta, which states that “Individuals are only liable before the authorities for infringement of the Constitution or the Law”.1 In essence, for the citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed.2

The state, however, operates under the opposite presumption. Public authorities, from government ministers to local councils and police officers, possess no inherent or autonomous power. Every action they take that affects the rights and obligations of individuals must be justified by reference to a positive source of legal authority.1 This is the essence of the principle of legality: the state can only do what the law—either statute or common law—expressly or implicitly permits. As Lord Camden famously articulated in the seminal case of

Entick v Carrington, if a public official cannot point to a specific legal justification for his actions in “the books,” then “the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant”.2 This principle serves as a critical bulwark against arbitrary power, ensuring that there is a legal justification for every governmental act and that a balance is maintained between the power of officials and the rights of citizens.1 It is this requirement of positive authority that subjects all actions of the public administration to the control of the judiciary.1

 

1.2 Common Law Authority: The Nature and Scope of the Royal Prerogative

 

The primary, and historically older, but still the only source of the right to govern is the Royal Prerogative. The prerogative consists of the residue of discretionary powers, immunities, and privileges that were historically vested in the monarch but are now, by constitutional convention, exercised almost exclusively by government ministers on behalf of the Crown.12 A.V. Dicey famously described the prerogative as “the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority” and noted that “Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of the prerogative”.13

Key prerogative powers include the authority to conduct foreign policy, make and ratify treaties, deploy the armed forces, declare war, grant pardons, and confer honours.12 Unlike statutory powers, prerogative powers do not require prior approval from Parliament for their exercise.15 However, the prerogative is not unlimited. As a creature of the common law, its existence and scope are matters of law that can be determined by the courts.14 Since the

Case of Proclamations (1611), it has been established that the monarch (and by extension, the executive) cannot create new prerogative powers, and existing powers cannot be used to alter domestic law or to override the provisions of an Act of Parliament.14 “The King hath no prerogative [the right to govern] but that which is allowed by the law of the land [the common law]“

A clear historical trend reveals the steady attrition of prerogative power in the face of an expanding statutory landscape. This phenomenon is not accidental but stems from a fundamental tension within the UK’s constitutional framework. The Royal Prerogative represents the residual common law source of power that is often opaque and lacks direct, prior legislative sanction for its specific use.13 Following the Bill of Rights 1688, Parliament by agreement through assent by an Act of Parliament by the Monarch creates a second constraint on the prerogative (right to govern). This creates a powerful constitutional pressure to place the historical and often ill-defined prerogative powers onto a clear statutory footing.

This process of “statutorification” is evident across government. For instance, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) placed the management of the civil service and the process for ratifying treaties on a statutory basis, curtailing the former prerogative powers in those areas.12 Similarly, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (though later repealed) temporarily replaced the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament with a statutory mechanism.12 This highlights the problem with a democratically elected Parliament who can change things to suit their agenda at any time! This gradual displacement of the prerogative by statute signifies a profound shift in the UK’s constitutional balance, moving from a system with significant pockets of residual executive power to one where executive authority is overwhelmingly derived from, and therefore accountable to Parliament. The zenith of this judicial enforcement of this constitutional direction was the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, which prevented the executive from using its formidable prerogative power over foreign affairs to trigger a fundamental change in domestic law and rights, insisting instead on the necessity of explicit statutory authorisation.16

1.3 Statutory Authority: The Legislative Grant of Power

 

The vast majority of powers exercised by government departments, ministers, and administrative agencies are delegated to them by Parliament through enabling statutes.10 These Acts define the scope, purpose, and limits of the powers conferred. For example, an Act might empower a minister to create regulations for a specific policy area, such as environmental protection or public health. However, this delegated power is not absolute. Ministers and public bodies are not permitted to act beyond the authority granted by the primary legislation.10 Any secondary or delegated legislation (such as a statutory instrument or order) that exceeds the scope of the parent Act is subject to challenge in the courts through judicial review and may be struck down as ultra vires.4 The clarity and precision of these enabling statutes are therefore critical; vague or ambiguous legislative drafting can lead to uncertainty and legal challenges regarding the lawful extent of executive power.11

 

 

Section 2: The Legality Test (Part I): The Ultra Vires Doctrine as a Substantive Constraint

 

2.1 The Historical Genesis: The Enduring Legacy of Entick v Carrington (1765)

 

The intellectual and legal cornerstone of the principle of legality in the common law world is the 18th-century case of Entick v Carrington.2 This seminal decision established the fundamental rule that the executive must have specific legal authority for any action that infringes upon the rights of an individual. The case arose when government messengers, acting under a general warrant issued by the Secretary of State, Lord Halifax, forcibly entered the home of the writer John Entick to search for and seize papers deemed to be seditious.2 Entick sued the messengers for trespass.

In his celebrated judgment, Lord Camden, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, ruled in favour of Entick. The defendants’ justification—that they were acting under a warrant from a minister of the Crown—was rejected. Lord Camden found that there was no basis in either statute or the common law for a Secretary of State to issue such a general warrant for search and seizure.21 The judgment’s most famous passage encapsulates the core of the legality principle: “If it is law, it will be found in our books, but no such law ever existed in this country… The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property… If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books… If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment”.2

The significance of Entick v Carrington is monumental. It unequivocally established that government officials are not above the law and are subject to the same laws of trespass as any private citizen.21 More profoundly, it cemented the constitutional principle that the executive must point to a positive and specific legal authority for any action that interferes with an individual’s fundamental rights, in this case, the right to the security of one’s property. This case is the foundational expression of the idea that the state cannot act ultra vires, or “beyond its powers,” and its influence resonates in constitutional law across the common law world, including in the drafting of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.21

 

2.2 Defining Ultra Vires: Policing the Boundaries of Lawful Action

 

Derived from Latin, the term ultra vires means “beyond the powers”.3 In administrative law, it is the central doctrine through which the courts, exercising their judicial review jurisdiction, determine whether a public body has acted outside the bounds of its authority.4 The doctrine is the primary legal test for the legality of government action, providing a crucial check on the power of administrative bodies and ensuring they do not overstep the authority conferred upon them by Parliament.26

The consequence of an act being found ultra vires is that it is treated as a nullity. It is void ab initio—from the very beginning—and has no legal force or effect.7 This means that any decisions, rules, or actions taken pursuant to the unlawful act are themselves invalid. The primary remedy granted by a court upon a finding of an ultra vires act is a quashing order, which formally cancels the decision.30 The doctrine applies to all forms of government action, from decisions of ministers and local authorities to secondary legislation like regulations and by-laws.4

 

2.3 Substantive Ultra Vires (or Narrow Ultra Vires): Acting Wholly Without Power

 

The most straightforward application of the doctrine is substantive ultra vires. This occurs when a public authority purports to do something for which it has no legal power at all. The authority to perform the act is simply absent from the empowering legislation or common law source.4 The decision-maker has exceeded the substantive limits of its power.

Clear examples include a public body attempting to levy a tax or a fee without explicit statutory authorisation, as taxation powers are exclusively the domain of the legislature.26 Another example would be a minister, granted the power under a statute to close a hospital for reasons of public health and safety, attempting to use that same power to close a hospital for purely financial reasons.34 In such a case, the minister would be acting outside the scope of the power conferred by the Act. A significant real-world example is the House of Lords decision in Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Hazell.4 In this case, local authorities had entered into complex financial instruments known as interest rate swaps. The court held that these transactions were ultra vires and void because the local authorities’ statutory borrowing powers did not extend to such speculative financial activities, which were effectively being used to circumvent statutory restrictions on borrowing.4

 

2.4 Procedural Ultra Vires: The Failure to Adhere to Mandated Process

 

A public body can also act ultra vires even if it has the substantive power to make a decision, if it fails to follow a procedure that the law requires. This is known as procedural ultra vires.4 Statutes often prescribe specific steps that a decision-maker must take before exercising a power, such as a duty to consult with affected parties, a requirement to give notice of a hearing, or an obligation to provide reasons for a decision.

When faced with a challenge on these grounds, courts must determine whether the procedural requirement was “mandatory” or “directory”.32 A failure to comply with a mandatory procedure will typically render the resulting decision void. In contrast, a failure to comply with a directory requirement may be treated as a mere irregularity that does not invalidate the decision, especially if no substantial prejudice was caused to the affected individual. Examples of procedural ultra vires include failing to give adequate notice of a hearing, failing to consider relevant evidence submitted by a party, or breaching the common law rules of natural justice, such as the rule against bias.26 The classic case illustrating this principle is Ridge v Baldwin, where the House of Lords quashed the dismissal of a chief constable because he had not been given notice of the charges against him or an opportunity to be heard in his defence, a fundamental breach of natural justice.26

 

2.5 Broad-Form Ultra Vires (or Illegality): The Abuse of Discretion

 

The doctrine of ultra vires has undergone a significant evolution, expanding from a narrow focus on the existence of power to a broader review of how that power is exercised. This development, often referred to as broad-form ultra vires or, in modern terminology, the ground of “illegality,” concerns the improper or abusive exercise of a lawfully possessed discretion.4 It acknowledges that even when a public body is acting within the four corners of its jurisdiction, it can still act unlawfully.

This expansion was a necessary judicial response to the growth of the modern administrative state. As Parliament began to confer increasingly broad and discretionary powers on ministers and agencies, the potential for those powers to be used in ways that were arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to the legislative purpose grew. The judiciary, in its role as the ultimate arbiter of the rule of law, developed more nuanced grounds of review to ensure that this discretion was not “absolute and untrammelled.” The seminal case of Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission was a watershed moment in this evolution.4 The House of Lords held that an ouster clause—a statutory provision attempting to exclude judicial review—could not prevent the courts from intervening where a tribunal had made an error of law. The court reasoned that any such error meant the tribunal had acted outside its true jurisdiction, rendering its decision a nullity. This decision effectively broadened the scope of ultra vires to include not just a lack of power, but any error of law made in the course of exercising that power.

This broader conception of illegality now encompasses a range of abuses of discretion, including:

  • Acting for an Improper Purpose: Using a power for a purpose other than the one for which Parliament conferred it.32
  • Irrelevant Considerations: Taking into account irrelevant factors or, conversely, failing to take into account relevant factors when making a decision.32
  • Bad Faith or Arbitrariness: Acting dishonestly, maliciously, or without any rational justification.7
  • Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Making a decision that is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied their mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.4

This judicial evolution reflects a more assertive and supervisory role for the courts in controlling the executive. While the judiciary justifies this intervention as merely giving effect to the implied intention of Parliament—that powers should be exercised reasonably and for their proper purpose—it undeniably blurs the line between reviewing the legality of a decision and questioning its substantive merits. This remains a constant point of friction in constitutional law and fuels ongoing debates about the proper limits of judicial power and the risk of judicial overreach.35

 

Section 3: The Legality Test (Part II): The Principle as a Rule of Statutory Interpretation

 

3.1 The Presumption Against Abrogating Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

 

Beyond its function as a test for the existence of power under the ultra vires doctrine, the principle of legality has evolved into a powerful and sophisticated rule of statutory interpretation.5 In this modern guise, the principle establishes a strong presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate in a way that interferes with fundamental common law rights, freedoms, immunities, or constitutional principles unless it does so using language that is unmistakably clear, express, and unambiguous.5

The rationale for this interpretive approach is rooted in the concept of political accountability within a democracy. As stated in landmark cases, it is considered “in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness”.5 The principle ensures that if Parliament intends to take the significant step of abrogating a fundamental right, it must “squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost”.37 The use of general or ambiguous statutory wording is deemed insufficient because the profound, rights-infringing implications of such language might otherwise pass unnoticed during the legislative and democratic process.5 The principle is therefore triggered whenever a statutory provision is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning. In such circumstances, the courts will resolve the ambiguity in favour of an interpretation that protects and preserves the fundamental right in question.5 However, the principle is entirely rebuttable. If Parliament uses language that is unequivocally clear and gives rise to only one possible construction—one that abrogates a right—the courts must give effect to that clear legislative intent, in deference to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.5

 

3.2 Reconciling Legality with Parliamentary Sovereignty

 

The principle of legality, as a rule of interpretation, does not operate in opposition to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty; rather, it functions in harmony with it.5 The principle is not a judicial veto on Parliament’s power. Instead, it is founded on a judicial assumption about the nature of the legislative process itself. The courts presume that Parliament is aware of the fundamental principles of the common law and the rights enjoyed by citizens, and that it legislates with these principles in mind.5

By insisting on “irresistible clearness” for the abrogation of rights, the judiciary is effectively enforcing a “manner and form” requirement on the legislature. It is not telling Parliament what it cannot do, but rather how it must do it if it wishes to achieve a certain outcome. This ensures that any decision to override fundamental norms is a conscious, deliberate, and politically accountable act of the legislature, rather than an accidental, inadvertent, or implicit consequence of broadly worded legislation. In this way, the principle of legality acts as a constitutional safeguard, promoting a dialogue between the courts and Parliament and ensuring that the protection of fundamental rights remains at the forefront of the legislative process.

 

3.3 The Modern Principle in Action: Landmark UK Supreme Court Analyses

 

In recent years, the UK Supreme Court has delivered a series of landmark judgments that powerfully illustrate the application of the principle of legality as a tool for protecting constitutional principles and fundamental rights from executive encroachment.

 

3.3.1 Protecting Access to Justice: R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor UKSC 51

 

This case is a quintessential modern application of the principle of legality to safeguard a core constitutional right. The Lord Chancellor, using a general power conferred by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to prescribe fees, introduced the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013.29 This Order imposed substantial fees, up to £1,200 for a typical claim, for individuals seeking to bring cases in Employment Tribunals, which had previously been free.29 The trade union UNISON challenged the Order as unlawful.39

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fees Order was ultra vires and unlawful ab initio (from the beginning).29 The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the principle of legality. It began by affirming that access to justice is a fundamental constitutional right, inherent in the rule of law.39 While the enabling statute granted the Lord Chancellor a general power to set fees, the Court applied the principle of legality to hold that such general words could not be read as authorising an intrusion on this fundamental right unless that intrusion was reasonably necessary to achieve the statute’s objectives.39

The evidence presented to the Court was compelling. Following the introduction of the fees, there was a “sharp, so substantial and so sustained” fall in the number of claims, demonstrating that the fees were set at a level that was unaffordable for many and rendered it irrational to pursue low-value claims.39 The Court concluded that there was a real risk that individuals were being effectively prevented from having access to justice.39 Because the fees went far beyond what was reasonably necessary to fulfil the stated objectives of the Order (such as transferring some of the cost burden to users), they constituted an unlawful limitation on the right of access to justice. The general statutory power to set fees could not be interpreted to permit such a drastic outcome. The Fees Order was therefore quashed, providing a powerful example of the judiciary using the principle of legality to protect a fundamental constitutional right from being undermined by the executive’s use of a general statutory power.39

 

3.3.2 Limiting Prerogative Power: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5

 

The Miller case addressed a constitutional question of the highest importance: whether the government could use its prerogative power over foreign affairs to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, thereby initiating the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, without an Act of Parliament.16 The government argued that the making and unmaking of treaties was a core prerogative power and did not require legislative approval.16

The Supreme Court, in an 8–3 majority decision, ruled against the government, holding that an Act of Parliament was required.19 The Court’s reasoning was a profound application of fundamental constitutional principles, analogous to the principle of legality. The central pillar of the judgment was the long-standing constitutional rule that the executive cannot use its prerogative powers to change domestic law or to diminish or remove rights that have been granted to individuals by Parliament.16

The Court observed that the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) had made EU law a direct source of UK domestic law and had created a new category of statutory rights for UK citizens (e.g., the right to freedom of movement).45 Triggering Article 50 would inevitably lead to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, which would, in turn, result in the nullification of the ECA and the extinguishment of this entire body of statutory rights.16 The Court held that a constitutional change of such magnitude, which would fundamentally alter the UK’s legal landscape and remove statutory rights, could not be effected by a minister exercising a prerogative power. Such an action would be a direct contradiction of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore, only a new Act of Parliament, giving explicit authority to the executive, could lawfully sanction the initiation of the withdrawal process.45

Miller stands as a modern landmark, affirming that even the most significant prerogative powers are subordinate to statute and cannot be used to undermine the legislative will of Parliament or the rights it has created.

 

3.3.3 Scrutinising Devolved Legislation: AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate UKSC 46

 

This case concerned the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the grounds upon which its Acts could be subject to judicial review. Insurance companies challenged the validity of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP) that effectively reversed a House of Lords decision by making certain asymptomatic asbestos-related conditions actionable in damages.49 The insurers argued, among other things, that the ASP was an irrational, unreasonable, and arbitrary exercise of legislative authority and was therefore invalid at common law.49

The Supreme Court rejected this specific line of argument. It held that an ASP, as the product of a democratically elected legislature with plenary (full) powers within its devolved competence, is not subject to judicial review on the ordinary common law grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness.50 These grounds were developed to control the exercise of limited powers by administrative bodies, not to review the political and social policy judgments of a legislature.50

However, the Court made a crucial qualification that demonstrates the principle of legality operating at the highest constitutional level. Lord Hope and Lord Reed both stated that the Scottish Parliament’s power was not unlimited and that an ASP could, in exceptional circumstances, be challenged if it violated fundamental principles of the constitution, such as the rule of law.50 They reasoned that the UK Parliament, in enacting the Scotland Act 1998, legislated for a liberal democracy and could not have intended to create a subordinate legislature that was free to abrogate fundamental rights or violate the rule of law (for example, by abolishing judicial review or passing laws that were arbitrary and oppressive).50 The AXA case is therefore highly significant because it establishes that even a democratically elected legislature, created by statute, is subject to the ultimate controlling factor of the rule of law, a principle that the courts will enforce. This illustrates the principle of legality setting fundamental constitutional boundaries that constrain even primary legislative power.

 

Section 4: A Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis

 

4.1 The United Kingdom: The Archetypal Framework

 

As the preceding sections have detailed, the United Kingdom’s approach to controlling executive power is rooted in the common law, operating within the unique constitutional context of parliamentary sovereignty. The legality test is a judicial creation, enforced through the dual mechanisms of the ultra vires doctrine (policing the boundaries of power) and the principle of legality as a rule of statutory interpretation (protecting fundamental rights from ambiguous legislative language).1 This framework allows the judiciary to maintain the rule of law while respecting the ultimate authority of Parliament.

 

4.2 Australia: A Robust “Common Law Bill of Rights”

 

Australia, having inherited the UK’s common law tradition, has embraced the principle of legality with exceptional force and clarity. Australian courts have frequently described the principle as a “common law bill of rights” that is “strongly resistant to legislative encroachment”.23 The High Court of Australia has consistently affirmed that the principle operates as a powerful interpretive presumption that Parliament does not intend to abrogate or curtail fundamental rights and freedoms unless it uses language that is clear, unambiguous, and demonstrates a conscious legislative decision to do so.5 The rights protected under this principle are extensive and include freedom of speech, the right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination, the right of access to the courts, and freedom from arbitrary detention.23

A significant and ongoing debate in Australian jurisprudence, which highlights the dynamism of the principle, is whether its protective scope should be extended beyond traditional common law rights to also safeguard important statutory rights.37 While some judges and academics have argued in favour of such an extension, recognising that many modern rights are statutory in origin, the matter remains judicially unresolved.37 This debate underscores the central role the principle of legality plays in Australian public law as the primary judicial mechanism for protecting individual liberties in the absence of a comprehensive constitutional bill of rights.

 

4.3 Canada: The Rule of Law as a Foundational Constitutional Principle

 

In Canada, the principle of legality is deeply interwoven with the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and procedural fairness, which are recognised as foundational elements of the Canadian constitution.27 The landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in Roncarelli v Duplessis (1959) is the Canadian equivalent of Entick v Carrington in its constitutional significance.56 In that case, the Premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, ordered the provincial liquor commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Jehovah’s Witness, as punishment for his providing bail for fellow members of his faith. The Supreme Court held that this was an unlawful abuse of power. Justice Ivan Rand, in his influential judgment, declared that in public law, “there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled ‘discretion'”.58 He established that any exercise of discretionary power must be guided by the purposes, objects, and policies of the empowering statute, and cannot be based on arbitrary, bad faith, or irrelevant grounds.57

The Canadian approach is also shaped significantly by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). The Charter provides a codified text of fundamental rights and freedoms, which allows for direct constitutional challenges to both primary legislation and executive action.34 This often supplants the need for a purely common law-based principle of legality, as rights-based claims can be grounded in the explicit text of the Charter. Furthermore, in the realm of criminal law, the principle of legality is explicitly codified in the Criminal Code, which abolishes all common law offences and states that no person can be convicted of an offence that is not defined in a statute.62 This reflects a strong preference for codification and legal certainty in the Canadian system.

 

4.4 A Contrast in Constitutional Design: The United States

 

4.4.1 The Doctrine of Separation of Powers: A Structural Alternative

 

The constitutional framework of the United States offers a stark contrast to the common law model. The primary mechanism for constraining government power is not a judicial principle of legality moderating a sovereign legislature, but rather the constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers.64 The U.S. Constitution establishes a rigid division of governmental responsibilities into three distinct branches: the legislative (Congress), the executive (the President), and the judicial (the Supreme Court).65

The core intent of this design is to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch by creating what Richard Neustadt famously described as “separate institutions sharing each other’s power”.68 This is achieved through an intricate system of

checks and balances, where each branch has the power to restrain the others. Examples include the President’s power to veto legislation passed by Congress, Congress’s power to impeach the President, and the judiciary’s power of judicial review to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional.65 Judicial review of executive action in the U.S. is therefore often framed not as a question of legality in the common law sense, but as a question of whether the executive has usurped the powers of the legislature (e.g., by making law rather than merely enforcing it) or has exceeded the specific authority delegated to it by Congress.64

 

4.4.2 Judicial Review and Agency Deference: The Rise and Fall of Chevron

 

For four decades, the U.S. approach to judicial review of administrative agencies was dominated by the doctrine of Chevron deference, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc..71 The Chevron doctrine created a two-step test for courts reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. If the statute’s language was clear, the court would simply apply it. However, if the statute was silent or ambiguous on a particular issue, the court was required to defer to the agency’s interpretation, so long as that interpretation was “reasonable”.71 This approach was based on a judicial presumption that a legislative ambiguity constituted an implicit delegation of interpretive authority from Congress to the expert administrative agency.74

In a seismic shift in U.S. administrative law, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in June 2024 in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal law governing agency action, requires courts to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority”.73 The Court held that deference to an agency’s interpretation of law was inconsistent with the APA’s mandate that courts must “decide all relevant questions of law”.73

The demise of Chevron deference represents a potential convergence in the approaches to judicial scrutiny of the executive across the Atlantic. The Chevron doctrine stood in direct opposition to the common law principle of legality. Where the principle of legality mandates judicial scepticism towards executive interpretations of ambiguous statutes to protect individual rights, Chevron mandated judicial deference to executive expertise to advance policy goals. The overruling of Chevron signals a fundamental realignment in U.S. administrative law, moving away from deference and reasserting the judiciary’s role as the ultimate and independent arbiter of statutory meaning.

This new U.S. position—where courts must exercise their own independent judgment on legal questions without deferring to the executive—is now conceptually much closer to the judicial posture in the UK, Australia, and Canada under the principle of legality. This shift suggests a broader trend in Western legal systems towards a more assertive judicial oversight of the administrative state, empowering the courts at the expense of executive agencies. The immediate practical effect in the United States will likely be an increase in successful legal challenges to agency regulations and a period of greater legal uncertainty for regulated industries as courts, rather than agencies, take the lead in resolving statutory ambiguities.77

 

Section 5: Enforcing Legality: Remedies in Judicial Review

 

5.1 The Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction

 

When a public body acts unlawfully, the primary mechanism for holding it to account is judicial review.30 This is the legal process through which individuals, groups, or corporations with “sufficient interest” can challenge the lawfulness of a decision, action, or failure to act by a body exercising a public function.83 It is crucial to understand that in judicial review, the court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction. Its role is not to step into the shoes of the decision-maker and decide the case on its merits—that is, to determine whether it was a “good” or “bad” decision. Rather, the court’s function is to review the legality of the decision-making process and the outcome, ensuring that the public body acted within its powers (intra vires), followed fair procedures, and acted rationally.83 If a decision is found to be unlawful, the court has a range of remedies at its disposal. The granting of any remedy is, however, discretionary; the court may refuse a remedy based on factors such as the claimant’s conduct, undue delay, or if the remedy would cause excessive administrative disruption.5

 

5.2 The Toolkit of Prerogative and Equitable Remedies

 

The courts in the UK have a well-established toolkit of remedies to deploy in successful judicial review claims. These remedies, which include the historic prerogative orders and equitable remedies, are designed to provide effective relief against unlawful government action.5

  • Quashing Order (formerly Certiorari): This is the most common and powerful remedy in judicial review.30 A quashing order nullifies the impugned decision, rendering it void ab initio (from the beginning), as if it had never been made.31 It is the standard remedy for an action found to be ultra vires. Once a decision is quashed, the court will typically remit the matter back to the original decision-maker to be decided again, this time in accordance with the law as clarified by the court’s judgment. For example, in R (RF) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the High Court quashed regulations that unlawfully discriminated against claimants with mental health conditions, forcing the government to review an estimated 1.6 million benefit claims.88
  • Prohibiting Order (formerly Prohibition): This remedy acts prospectively. It is an order from the court that prevents a public body from taking a future action that would be unlawful or would exceed its powers.30 Whereas a quashing order deals with an unlawful act that has already occurred, a prohibiting order is used to stop an imminent or contemplated illegality. An example would be an order to prevent a local authority from implementing a decision that was reached in breach of the rules of natural justice or to stop the deportation of an individual whose immigration status was wrongly decided.30
  • Mandatory Order (formerly Mandamus): This order compels a public body to perform a public duty that it has wrongfully failed to carry out.30 It is a coercive remedy used to address wrongful inaction, as opposed to wrongful action. Courts are generally reluctant to grant mandatory orders, as they involve directing the executive on how to act, and will typically only do so where the legal duty is clear and there is no discretion left to the public body.91 Examples include compelling a local authority to fulfil its statutory duty to assess a disabled person’s needs or, as in the Scottish case of Y v Glasgow City Council, to provide permanent accommodation to a homeless person.90
  • Declaration: A declaration is a formal statement by the court that clarifies the legal position, rights, or obligations of the parties involved in the dispute.30 It is a non-coercive remedy; it does not order any party to do or refrain from doing anything. However, as an authoritative statement of the law from the High Court, it is expected that a public body will act in accordance with it.84 Declarations are particularly useful for resolving legal uncertainty about a proposed government policy before it is implemented.
  • Injunction: An injunction is an equitable remedy that orders a party to either perform a specific act (a mandatory injunction) or, more commonly, to refrain from performing a specific act (a prohibitory injunction).30 In judicial review, injunctions are often sought on an interim basis to prevent a public body from acting on a challenged decision until the full case can be heard, thereby preventing irreparable harm to the claimant.81
  • Damages: An award of damages is not a standard remedy in judicial review. Compensation is not available merely because a public authority has acted unlawfully. For a court to award damages in a judicial review claim, the unlawful act must also give rise to a separate cause of action in private law (such as negligence or breach of statutory duty) or constitute a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.30

 

Table 1: Remedies in UK Judicial Review for Ultra Vires Actions

 

Remedy Legal Effect Primary Purpose Example
Quashing Order Retrospectively nullifies a decision, rendering it void ab initio. To cancel an unlawful decision that has already been made. Quashing a Home Office policy to deport EU rough sleepers, as it was discriminatory and unlawful (R (Gureckis) v SSHD).88
Prohibiting Order Prospectively prevents a public body from taking a contemplated unlawful action. To stop an imminent or future unlawful act before it occurs. Preventing a local authority from deporting someone whose immigration status has been wrongly decided.30
Mandatory Order Compels a public body to perform a specific legal duty. To remedy a wrongful failure to act. Compelling a local authority to assess a disabled person’s needs or approve building plans.90
Declaration A formal, non-coercive statement by the court on the legal position of the parties. To clarify the law and the rights/obligations of the parties without ordering action. A court declaring that a proposed rule by a local authority is unlawful, resolving the legal issue without a coercive order.30
Injunction A court order requiring a party to do, or refrain from doing, a specific act. To prevent unlawful action (prohibitory) or compel action (mandatory), often on an urgent/interim basis. An interim injunction to stop a local authority from closing a school pending a full judicial review hearing.81

 

Conclusion and Recommendations

 

The principle of legality stands as the central pillar upholding the rule of law against executive overreach in common law constitutional systems. It is the primary legal test through which the judiciary ensures that the state, in all its manifestations, remains subordinate to the law. This report has demonstrated that the principle is not a single, static rule but a dynamic and multi-faceted doctrine with two core functions: as a substantive check on the existence of power through the ultra vires doctrine, and as a rights-protective rule of statutory interpretation.

The analysis reveals a doctrine that has evolved significantly over time. From its origins as a straightforward jurisdictional check on executive trespass in cases like Entick v Carrington, it has developed into a sophisticated and powerful instrument for safeguarding fundamental rights and constitutional principles. Modern landmark cases such as R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor and R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union showcase a judiciary willing to apply the principle robustly to protect access to justice and prevent the executive from unilaterally dismantling rights. This evolution reflects the judiciary’s adaptation to the realities of the modern administrative state, where broad discretionary powers granted by Parliament carry the inherent risk of abuse or overreach.

The principle of legality adeptly navigates the inherent constitutional tension between judicial oversight and executive action. It respects the democratic mandate of the executive and the sovereignty of the legislature by deferring to a clear and unambiguous legislative will. Yet, it robustly polices ambiguity and the exercise of discretion, ensuring that state power is exercised rationally, for its proper purpose, and with due regard for the fundamental rights of the individual. The comparative analysis further highlights its importance, showing its strong application in jurisdictions like Australia and Canada, and a recent convergence in the United States with the overturning of Chevron deference, signalling a broader trend toward more assertive judicial scrutiny of the administrative state.

In light of these findings, two key recommendations emerge. First, for legislators and policymakers, it is imperative that any statute intended to limit fundamental rights or grant broad executive powers does so with the “irresistible clearness” that the principle of legality demands. Vague or general language will be, and should be, interpreted by the courts in a manner that preserves fundamental norms. This forces profound policy choices that impact individual rights to be made transparently and accountably within the political arena, rather than opaquely through the exercise of ambiguous executive power. Second, for the judiciary, a continued vigilant and principled application of the doctrine is essential. The principle of legality is not a tool for judges to substitute their own policy preferences for those of the elected government. It is, however, the indispensable constitutional safeguard that ensures all state power remains derived from, and ultimately subordinate to, the law. Its consistent application is vital for maintaining the delicate balance between effective governance and the protection of individual liberty.

Works cited

  1. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION – Revistas – UMECIT, accessed July 9, 2025, https://revistas.umecit.edu.pa/index.php/cathedra/article/download/878/1992/7708
  2. Entick v Carrington – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington
  3. ultra vires | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ultra_vires
  4. Ultra vires – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires
  5. Principle of Legality | Rule of Law Education Centre, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/principle-of-legality/
  6. Fundamental Common Llaw Rights and Legislation* – University of Cambridge, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstreams/cdcbc711-e9c6-411e-b0b9-4f5e388f20d5/download
  7. What is the principle of legality? | G.Elías y Muñoz Lawyers, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.eliasymunozabogados.com/en/blog/what-principle-legality
  8. Sources of the UK Constitution – Political Studies: Edexcel A Level – Seneca, accessed July 9, 2025, https://senecalearning.com/en-GB/revision-notes/a-level/political-studies/edexcel/8-1-3-sources-of-the-uk-constitution
  9. Parliament’s authority, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/
  10. The executive – The Constitution Society, accessed July 9, 2025, https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/the-executive/
  11. The Principle of Ultra Vires and the Local Authorities’ Decisions in England – Eleven Journals, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.elevenjournals.com/tijdschrift/ejlr/2013/3/EJL_1387-2370_2013_015_003_006.pdf
  12. What is the royal prerogative? | The Constitution Unit – UCL …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-royal-prerogative
  13. Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
  14. Royal prerogative – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
  15. United Kingdom: The royal prerogative – Oxford Academic, accessed July 9, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article-pdf/8/1/146/1992427/mop038.pdf
  16. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union
  17. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) Summary of judgment – Judiciary.uk, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
  18. en.wikipedia.org, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union#:~:text=Article-,R%20(Miller)%20v%20Secretary%20of%20State%20for%20Exiting%20the%20European,formal%20notification%20to%20the%20Council
  19. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017], accessed July 9, 2025, https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-2017
  20. Entick v Carrington [1765] – UOLLB First Class Law Notes®, accessed July 9, 2025, https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/entick-v-carrington-1765
  21. Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 – LawTeacher.net, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/entick-v-carrington.php
  22. Entick v. Carrington | Law Library | Digital Exhibits, accessed July 9, 2025, https://lawlibrarycollections.umn.edu/classic-cases-constitutional-entick-v-carrington
  23. Principle of Legality (Australia) – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Legality_(Australia)
  24. The Government and the Principle of Legality | LawTeacher.net, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/the-government-and-the-principle-of-legality-administrative-law-essay.php
  25. www.law.cornell.edu, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ultra_vires#:~:text=Ultra%20vires%20is%20a%20Latin,legal%20scope%20of%20its%20authority%20.
  26. Understanding Ultra Vires Doctrine – Number Analytics, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-ultra-vires-doctrine-administrative-law
  27. LexisNexis® Reference Card: Administrative Law, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.lexisnexis.ca/pdf/products/LexisNexis_Reference_Card_Administrative_Law.pdf
  28. Jeff King: Miller/Cherry and Remedies for Ultra Vires Delegated Legislation, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09/19/jeff-king-miller-cherry-and-remedies-for-ultra-vires-delegated-legislation/
  29. R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(UNISON)_v_Lord_Chancellor
  30. Remedies in judicial review – Public Law Project, accessed July 9, 2025, https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/data/resources/116/PLP_2006_Remedies_In_JR.pdf
  31. Quashing order – Oxford Reference, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100358804
  32. Procedural Ultra Vires | PDF | Constitution | Certiorari – Scribd, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/388706866/Procedural-ultra-vires-docx
  33. www.numberanalytics.com, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-substantive-ultra-vires-administrative-law#:~:text=While%20procedural%20ultra%20vires%20deals,decisions%20made%20by%20these%20bodies.
  34. Administrative Law in Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-law
  35. Hayley Hooper: Historical Origins of the ‘Principle of Legality’ in British Public Law, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2024/05/20/hayley-hooper-historical-origins-of-the-principle-of-legality-in-british-public-law/
  36. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY | The Cambridge Law Journal, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/principle-of-legality/EC9689B4C2334750AB3DF806AF330A6B
  37. The Principle of Legality: Protecting Statutory Rights from … – AustLII, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2019/3.pdf
  38. Protecting Rights under the Common Law: R(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor, accessed July 9, 2025, https://blog.lselawreview.com/2020/02/01/protecting-rights-under-the-common-law-runison-v-lord-chancellor/
  39. R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor – Blackstone Chambers, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/r-unison-v-lord-chancellor/
  40. en.wikipedia.org, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(UNISON)_v_Lord_Chancellor#:~:text=It%20held%20that%20fees%20for,defy%20the%20rule%20of%20law.
  41. R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html
  42. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union: Three Competing Syllogisms, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.modernlawreview.co.uk/july-2017/r-miller-v-secretary-state-exiting-european-union-three-competing-syllogisms/
  43. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
  44. R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) and 2 – The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, accessed July 9, 2025, https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2016_0196_judgment_ce390bd976.pdf
  45. Brexit Judgment: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC, accessed July 9, 2025, https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/27792/1/AAM%20Brexit%20Judgment%20-%20Miller%20v%20Secretary%20of%20State%20for%20Exiting%20the%20EU%202017%20UKSC%205.pdf
  46. R (Miller & Anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union & Ors [2017] UKSC 5, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ampersandadvocates.com/2017/01/24/r-miller-anor-v-secretary-state-exiting-european-union-ors-2017-uksc-5/
  47. Analysis / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller – Public Law for Everyone, accessed July 9, 2025, https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/01/25/analysis-the-supreme-courts-judgment-in-miller/
  48. Brexit Miller case – the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union on immigration, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/brexit-miller-case-the-impact-of-the-uks-exit-from-the-european-union-on-immigration/
  49. Power and authority | Law Society of Scotland, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-56-issue-11/power-and-authority/
  50. Written Statement – Supreme Court Judgement – AXA v Lord Advocate (12 October 2011), accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-supreme-court-judgement-axa-v-lord-advocate
  51. AXA, Asbestos and Administrative Law: The Case Files | Brodies LLP, accessed July 9, 2025, https://brodies.com/insights/health-and-safety/axa-asbestos-and-administrative-law-the-case-files-podcast/
  52. G Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Limited (Appellant) v The …, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2011-0039.html
  53. AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2011] UKSC 46; [2012] 1 AC 868 – Law Notes, accessed July 9, 2025, https://lawprof.co/public-law/parliamentary-sovereignty-cases/axa-general-insurance-ltd-v-hm-advocate-2011-uksc-46-2012-1-ac-868/
  54. New Judgment: AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46 – UK Supreme Court Blog, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-axa-general-insurance-ltd-ors-v-lord-advocate-ors-scotland-2011-uksc-46/
  55. Administrative Law, accessed July 9, 2025, https://emond.ca/Legal-Resource-Hub/Law-School-Resources/1L-Legal-Overviews/Administrative-Law
  56. en.wikipedia.org, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roncarelli_v_Duplessis#:~:text=Roncarelli%20provided%20bail%20for%20Jehovah’s,damages%20plus%20Roncarelli’s%20court%20costs.&text=Trial%20judge%20correct%2C%20amount%20awarded%20at%20trial%20increased%20by%20%2425%2C000.
  57. Roncarelli v Duplessis – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roncarelli_v_Duplessis
  58. The Legacy of Roncarelli v. Duplessis 1959–2009 – McGill Law Journal -, accessed July 9, 2025, https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf/902154-Cartier.pdf
  59. The Unfinished Project of Roncarelli v. Duplessis: Justiciability, Discretion and the Limits of the Rule of Law – Osgoode Digital Commons, accessed July 9, 2025, https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2125&context=scholarly_works
  60. “Witnessing Arbitrariness: Roncarelli v. Duplessis Fifty Years On” by Mary Liston – Allard Research Commons – The University of British Columbia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs/213/
  61. 5. Key legal principles [20] | Ontario Human Rights Commission, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-competing-human-rights/5-key-legal-principles-20
  62. en.wikipedia.org, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_legality_in_criminal_law#:~:text=In%20Canada%2C%20the%20principle%20of,criminal%20infraction%20under%20common%20law.
  63. Principle of legality in criminal law – Wikipedia, accessed July 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_legality_in_criminal_law
  64. Separation of Powers: An Overview – National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview
  65. separation of powers | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers
  66. Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
  67. Separation of Powers | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers_0
  68. Separation of Powers: An Overview – Columbia Law School, accessed July 9, 2025, https://passport.law.columbia.edu/_customtags/ct_DocumentRetrieve.cfm?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJwYXlsb2FkIjp7InRpbWVzdGFtcCI6IjIwMjMtMDYtMTJUMTI6MTU6NTgiLCJleHBpcmVMaW5rIjpmYWxzZSwiZmlsZUlkIjoyNTcwNH19.QmJKeyuz4dK6bFe5-Xly9w3K0_-MuD31ak2g-LQ5H8g
  69. Separation of Powers in Administrative Law – Number Analytics, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/separation-of-powers-administrative-law
  70. REGULATION AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS – USC Gould School of Law, accessed July 9, 2025, https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/28-2-Bendor.pdf
  71. Chevron Deference: A Primer – Congress.gov, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44954
  72. “The Constitutional Case for “Chevron” Deference” by Jonathan R. Siegel, accessed July 9, 2025, https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol71/iss3/4/
  73. Chevron deference | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
  74. Scholar explains implications of SCOTUS revisiting ‘Chevron deference’ – Harvard Gazette, accessed July 9, 2025, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/01/chevron-deference-faces-existential-test/
  75. Chevron Deference No Longer – Supreme Court Overturns Cornerstone of Administrative Law | Legal Alerts | Allen Matkins, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.allenmatkins.com/real-ideas/supreme-court-overturns-cornerstone-administrative-law.html
  76. The Chevron Doctrine is Dead. Long Live the Administrative State. | Seyfarth Shaw LLP, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/chevron-is-dead-long-live-the-administrative-state.html
  77. Supreme Court’s Overruling of Chevron Deference to Administrative Agencies’ Interpretations of Statutes Will Invite More Challenges to Agency Decisions | Insights – Skadden, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/07/the-supreme-courts-overruling-of-chevron-deference
  78. Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies – SCOTUSblog, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/
  79. The End of Chevron Deference: What Does It Mean, and What Comes Next?, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-august/end-chevron-deference-what-does-it-mean-what-comes-next/
  80. Examining Potential Impacts to Federally Regulated Entities Should Supreme Court Overturn Chevron Deference Doctrine – Kutak Rock, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.kutakrock.com/newspublications/publications/2024/february/ussc-could-impact-chevron-deference-doctrine
  81. Judicial Review in Education – Doyle Clayton, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/services/education/judicial-review/
  82. Quickguide – Judicial Review – Ashurst, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.ashurst.com/en/insights/quickguide-judicial-review/
  83. Judicial review – Pinsent Masons, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/judicial-review
  84. Challenging government decisions in the UK An introduction to judicial review – Hogan Lovells, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.hoganlovells.com/-/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publication/challenginggovernmentdecisionsintheuk-anintroductiontojudiciallaw_pdf.pdf
  85. Judicial Review in the UK: A Comprehensive Guide for 2023 – Lawdit Solicitors, accessed July 9, 2025, https://lawdit.co.uk/readingroom/the-ultimate-guide-to-judicial-review
  86. Chapter 2: Quashing orders – Legislative Scrutiny: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – Joint Committee on Human Rights – House of Commons – UK Parliament, accessed July 9, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5802/jtselect/jtrights/884/88405.htm
  87. What is a Quashing order? – Expert Legal Advice – 3PB Direct, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.3pbdirect.co.uk/faq/what-is-a-quashing-order/
  88. Judicial Review and Courts Bill Case Studies – Clause 1 | Public Law Project, accessed July 9, 2025, https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/2021/10/PLP-JR-Bill-Clause-1-Case-studies.pdf
  89. What is the difference with a Prohibiting order? – Expert Legal Advice – 3PB Direct, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.3pbdirect.co.uk/faq/what-is-the-difference-with-a-prohibiting-order/
  90. Will a Mandatory order compel the public authority to do their job? – 3PB Direct, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.3pbdirect.co.uk/faq/will-a-mandatory-order-compel-the-public-authority-to-do-their-job/
  91. Gabriel Tan and Lewis Graham: One Year On From Imam v Croydon: Mandatory orders, judicial psychology and judicial review – UK Constitutional Law Association, accessed July 9, 2025, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/01/16/gabriel-tan-and-lewis-graham-one-year-on-from-imam-v-croydon-mandatory-orders-judicial-psychology-and-judicial-review/
  92. Mandatory orders in immigration judicial review applications – Free Movement, accessed July 9, 2025, https://freemovement.org.uk/mandatory-orders-in-immigration-judicial-review-applications/
  93. Declarations, quashing orders and declaratory judgments: The Hawke case and section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 – Public Law for Everyone, accessed July 9, 2025, https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/12/15/declarations-quashing-orders-and-declaratory-judgments-the-hawke-case-and-section-84-of-the-criminal-justice-and-courts-act-2015/
  94. JUDICIAL REVIEW UPDATE INTERIM RELIEF IN JUDICIAL REVIEW1 David Forsdick – Landmark Chambers, accessed July 9, 2025, https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Interim_Relief_in_Judicial_Review_-_DF.pdf

Leave a comment