INTRODUCTION
[2.01] This chapter considers when the judicial review procedure is, or should be, used. It focuses on the implications of (1) the public/private divide and (2) the requireÂment that individuals make use of effective alternative remedies in preference to judicial review (remedies which may take the form of, for instance, proceedings before a tribunal or a statutory right of appeal).
This is an area of considerable conceptual and practical complexity (albeit as manifest in a relatively small number of cases) and the courts have long had difficulty, in particular, in delimiting the province of judicial review and locating the corresponding realm of public law. This chapter thus examines case law on the public/private divide in Northern Ireland law and the corresponding range of tests that the courts use when identifying matters of public law that may be heard by way of application for judicial review. The chapter also considers the implications of proceeding by way of judicial review when a dispute is one of private law; and it links that issue to the wider theme of effective alternative remedies.[2.02] The chapter begins by outlining the nature of the problem presented by the public/ private divide and related procedural issues. It next examines the tests that the courts use when deciding whether a matter is amenable to judicial review, and it also considers here the significance of several statutory provisions that define and/or list â€?public authorities’ in a manner that has relevance for judicial review case law (the most important provision is section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998). The chapter finally examines case law on the requirement that individuals use alternative remedies in prefÂerence to judicial review; and the conclusion provides a summary of the key points made under each heading.