1. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ case)

• Issue: Whether a ministerial decision made under the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.

• Held: Yes, certain prerogative powers are reviewable if they affect individual rights.

• Significance: Established grounds for judicial review — illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety (Lord Diplock’s “tripartite test”).

2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

• Issue: Challenge to a council decision to restrict Sunday cinema admissions for children.

• Held: The decision was not unreasonable in a legal sense.

• Significance: Gave rise to the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, a key principle in assessing irrationality.

3. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696

• Issue: Media ban on direct broadcasting of voices from Sinn Féin.

• Held: The minister’s decision was not unlawful.

• Significance: Showed early reluctance to apply proportionality; later replaced with human rights proportionality post-HRA 1998.

4. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26

• Issue: Blanket policy of searching prisoners’ legal correspondence.

• Held: Breached Article 8 ECHR (right to privacy).

• Significance: Confirmed that proportionality is the appropriate standard for reviewing human rights claims under the HRA 1998.

5. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5

• Issue: Whether the government could trigger Article 50 (Brexit) without Parliament’s consent.

• Held: Parliament must authorise the triggering of Article 50.

• Significance: Reaffirmed Parliamentary sovereignty and limits on executive prerogative powers.

6. R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 (Miller No. 2 / Cherry case)

• Issue: Whether the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was justiciable and unlawful.

• Held: The advice was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating Parliament without justification.

• Significance: Landmark case affirming that executive actions are subject to judicial scrutiny, even if political.

7. R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517

• Issue: Challenge to the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces.

• Held: The policy was within the wide discretion of the MoD, but courts could intervene if the decision was irrational.

• Significance: A key case leading toward stronger protection of rights, later overridden by ECtHR decisions.

🧾 Summary of Grounds for Judicial Review

1. Illegality – The decision-maker must understand and apply the law correctly.

2. Irrationality – Wednesbury unreasonableness or disproportionality.

3. Procedural Impropriety – Fair process must be followed.

4. Breach of Legitimate Expectation – Where a public body promises a certain procedure or benefit.

5. Proportionality (especially in Human Rights Act 1998 cases).