CONCLUSION

[2.38] The above issues are complex and the corresponding case law continues to evolve. However, there are four overarching points that may be made by way of conclusion:

i. Judicial review is concerned with the province of public law issues and not private disputes involving no element of public law.

ii. The source of power test is no longer the sole test for amenability to review. There are many other tests that have been developed in the light of the fact that public law decisions are taken by a wide range of bodies, some of which are not working within the framework of statute. The most important of these is the �public interest’ test (see [2.10]-[2.25]).

iii. Purely private law matters cannot be subject to judicial review. If an application for judicial review is made in respect of a private law matter, the court may order that the proceedings continue as if begun by writ (subject to the nature of the dispute lending itself to continuation). However, public law matters pursued by way of private law proceedings cannot be ordered to continue as if commenced by way of application as this would undermine the procedural protections contained in the Order 53 procedure. The courts will, however, be more flexible where private law proceedings raise mixed matters of public law and private law and where the private law matter is dominant. The public law matter may here be considered as a col­lateral issue (see [2.05] and [2.28]-[2.33]).

iv. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. Where statute provides an individual with an alternative remedy, that remedy should ordinarily be pursued. This requirement is, however, qualified by the need for the alternative remedy to be effective and efficient. The courts will thus consider issues of cost, delay, the nature of the inquiry needed, and the overall interests of the legal system when deciding whether an application for judicial review should be allowed to proceed (see [2.34]-[2.37]).