2. What are Judicial Review Remedies
Judicial review remedies are the legal solutions or actions that can be
taken by a court to correct the decisions or actions of a public body or
official that are found to be unlawful or irrational through judicial
review. The aim of judicial review is to ensure that the public bodies
or officials act within their powers and in accordance with the law
3. Certiorari
Certiorari, also known as a quashing order, is a type of judicial review that is used to challenge
decisions made by lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies. The purpose of certiorari is to
determine whether the decision made by the lower court or administrative body was made within its
jurisdiction and in accordance with the law.
When seeking certiorari, an applicant must convince the higher court that the decision made by the
lower court or administrative body was made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in breach
of natural justice. The higher court will review the decision to determine whether it was lawful, and if it
finds that it was not, it may quash the decision and declare it null and void.
4. Certiorari cont’d
The outcome of a certiorari judicial review is that the decision of the
lower court or administrative body is either upheld or quashed. If the
decision is upheld, it remains in force. If the decision is quashed, it is
declared null and void, and the lower court or administrative body
must reconsider the matter in accordance with the decision of the
higher court.
5. Certiorari cases
A quashing order (Certiorari) is a legal remedy used to overturn or set aside a previous decision or order made by a court or
administrative body. Here are a few examples of cases where a quashing order may be sought:
1. Administrative decision quashed: A person may seek a quashing order if they are dissatisfied with an
administrative decision that affects them. For example, if a local council makes a decision to refuse planning
permission for a development, the developer may seek a quashing order to challenge that decision.
2. Criminal charges quashed: In a criminal case, a person may seek a quashing order if they believe that the
charges against them are invalid. This could be because the charges are based on evidence that was illegally
obtained or because the prosecution has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the charges.
3. Judicial decision quashed: In some cases, a party may seek a quashing order to challenge a decision made
by a judge in a court case. For example, if a judge made an error in law or fact that affected the outcome of
the case, a party may seek a quashing order to challenge the decision.
4. Board or Commission decision quashed: A person may seek a quashing order if they are unhappy with a
decision made by a regulatory body, such as a licensing board or commission. For example, a doctor whose
medical license has been suspended by a medical board may seek a quashing order to challenge that
decision.
6. Mandamus
Mandamus is a judicial review remedy that allows a court to issue a mandatory order to
compel a public official or governmental body to perform a specific legal duty. The
purpose of mandamus is to ensure that public officials and agencies are held accountable
and that they perform their duties in accordance with the law.
The use of mandamus typically involves a situation where an individual or organization
has been denied a legal right or benefit by a public official or governmental body. The
aggrieved party can petition the court for a writ of mandamus, which is an order requiring
the official or agency to perform the duty they are legally obligated to perform.
For example, if a citizen is denied access to public records, they may file a petition for a
writ of mandamus to compel the governmental body to provide the requested records.
Alternatively, if a government agency fails to act on a permit application in a timely
manner, the applicant may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the agency to process the
application.
7. Mandamus cont’d
The outcome of a mandamus review is typically a court order requiring the
public official or agency to perform the duty they were legally obligated to
perform. If the court finds that the official or agency has acted improperly or
failed to comply with the law, the court may also order other relief, such as
monetary damages or attorney's fees.
It is worth noting that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy in all cases. The
petitioner must demonstrate that they have a clear legal right to the benefit
sought and that the public official or agency has a clear legal duty to provide it.
Additionally, mandamus is typically only available as a last resort, after other
administrative or legal remedies have been exhausted.
8. Mandamus (mandatory order) cases
1. Environmental protection: In cases where a company is found to be violating environmental regulations, a
mandatory order may be issued to compel the company to take action to remediate the damage caused-
Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014): This case involved a mandatory order
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring power plants to reduce their emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The order was challenged by power companies, but ultimately upheld by the Supreme
Court.
2. Public safety: In cases where a product or service poses a threat to public safety, a mandatory order may be
issued to compel the company or individual responsible to take action to mitigate the risk.United States v. Microsoft
Corp. (2002): In this case, the Department of Justice sought a mandatory order requiring Microsoft to separate its
Internet Explorer browser from its Windows operating system. The order was issued by a federal judge, but
ultimately overturned on appeal.
3. Labor disputes: In cases where an employer is found to be in violation of labor laws, a mandatory order may be issued
to compel the employer to take corrective action, such as reinstating an unfairly terminated employee or paying back
wages.National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University (1980): This case involved a mandatory order issued
by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requiring Yeshiva University to bargain with its faculty union. The
order was challenged by the university, but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
9. Prohibition
Prohibition is a judicial review remedy that allows a higher court to prohibit a lower court
or tribunal from acting outside of its jurisdiction or from acting in excess of its legal
authority. The purpose of the remedy is to prevent lower courts or tribunals from making
decisions that go beyond their powers or violate the law.
The use of prohibition typically involves a situation where a party believes that a lower
court or tribunal is exceeding its legal authority or acting beyond the scope of its
jurisdiction. The aggrieved party can petition a higher court for a writ of prohibition, which
is an order prohibiting the lower court or tribunal from acting in a certain way.
10. Prohibition cont’d
For example, if a lower court is attempting to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, a
party may seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the lower court from enforcing the law.
Similarly, if a lower court is trying to hear a case that is outside of its jurisdiction, a party
may seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the lower court from hearing the case.
The outcome of a prohibition review is typically a court order prohibiting the lower court
or tribunal from acting outside of its jurisdiction or exceeding its legal authority. The
higher court may also provide additional guidance to the lower court or tribunal on how
to properly proceed in the matter.
It is important to note that prohibition is not an appropriate remedy in all cases. The
petitioner must demonstrate that the lower court or tribunal is acting outside of its
jurisdiction or exceeding its legal authority. Additionally, prohibition may only be
available as a last resort, after other administrative or legal remedies have been exhausted.
11. Prohibition (prohibiting order) cases
Prohibiting orders, also known as restraining orders, are legal orders that restrict certain behaviors or
actions of an individual. Here are a few examples of situations in which a prohibiting order may be issued:
1. Domestic violence: If someone is a victim of domestic violence or has reason to believe that they may
be at risk of harm from a family member or partner, they may seek a restraining order to prohibit the
abuser from contacting them or coming within a certain distance of them.
2. Stalking: If someone is being stalked or harassed by another person, they may seek a restraining order
to prohibit the stalker from contacting them, following them, or coming within a certain distance of
them.
3. Workplace harassment: If an employee is experiencing harassment or threats from a colleague or
supervisor, they may seek a restraining order to prohibit the harasser from contacting them or coming
to their workplace.
4. Property disputes: If there is a dispute between neighbors over property boundaries or use, a
prohibiting order may be issued to prohibit one party from entering or using the disputed area.
5. Intellectual property disputes: In cases where there is a dispute over the use of intellectual property,
such as trademarks, copyrights, or patents, a prohibiting order may be issued to prohibit one party
from using or distributing the disputed intellectual property.
