Executive decision-making and the courts: revisiting the origins of modern judicial review

In this book leading experts from across the common law world assess the impact of three seminal House of Lords' judgements; Padfield v Minister of Agriculture; Conway v Rimmer; and Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission, all of which were decided in 1968. Together with Ridge v Baldwin decided five years earlier, this 'Quartet' has been widely taken to have marked a turning point in the development of court-centred administrative law, leading directly to the emergence of modern judicial review. These cases are examined in order to interrogate not only the courts' role in the protection of individual rights and interests against executive over-reach, but also the broader question of the contribution the judiciary can make to developing and maintaining good government in the United Kingdom. By doing so, the book sheds new light on both the complex processes through which the modern system of judicial review emerged, and the normative and constitutional choices that are implicit in its jurisprudence. It further reflects upon the choices made and their implications for how the achievements, failings, and limitations of the common law in reviewing actions of the executive can be evaluated.