Administrative Redress

This consultation paper deals with the question: when and how should the individual be able to obtain redress from a public body that has acted in a substandard manner? The Commission believes that, in principle, claimants should be entitled to obtain redress for loss caused by clearly substandard administrative action. But it also realises that special consideration should be given to the role played by public bodies when considering when and under what terms they should be liable for such losses. Part 3 of the paper analyses the mechanisms currently available for aggrieved citizens: formal complaints procedures; external non-court avenues, such as tribunals and public inquiries; public sector ombudsmen; court action. The vast majority of cases are handled effectively in the first three mechanisms. The appropriateness and effectiveness of court action is investigated, looking at judicial review and private law. In private law the analysis focuses on the torts of misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and negligence. Part 4 highlights certain defects in the law relating to court-based remedies. In both public and private law, the Commission finds a strong argument for the reform of court-based administrative redress, and suggests specific reforms. To encourage the role of the ombudsmen, in part 5 the paper suggests the creation of a power to stay actions, encouraging claimants to submit suitable claims to the ombudsmen before taking court action. Secondly, it suggests that access to the ombudsmen be improved by modifying the "statutory bar" and removing the MP filter in relation to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Part 6 examines potential costs and benefits for public bodies, possible statutory immunities and caps for individual claims. There is a need for more data on the resource implications of the suggested reforms.

In this report the Law Commission sets out conclusions from its review of administrative redress in public and private law following consultation (Law Commission consultation paper 187, 2008, ISBN 9780118404532). The aim of the Commission's review was to consider when and how individuals should be able to obtain redress against public bodies that have acted in a substandard way. The report discusses individuals' access to remedies through the courts, as well as through avenues outside the court system, such as the public sector ombudsmen. In examining court-based remedies, the Commission concludes that there are good arguments for reform but, given the level of opposition to its earlier proposals and the absence of available data on the costs of compensation paid by public bodies, work will not be taken forward on reviewing this area of the law. The report does, however, recommend that government should establish a process for collecting and publishing information on the cost of public compensation. The Commission is taking forward its review of the public sector ombudsmen, following a favourable response to its proposals. The scope of the review will be extended and include suggestions for improving citizens' access to the public sector ombudsmen, and increasing the powers of ombudsmen to refer points of law to the courts. The Commission will consult on its proposals for reform of public sector ombudsmen later in 2010 and expects to make final recommendations to government the following year.

Filling a need for a case and materials book on constitutional and administrative law, this textbook reflects the latest thinking particularly in relation to the European Communities.

"The core animating feature of administrative justice scholarship is the desire to understand how justice is achieved through the delivery of public services and the actions, inactions, and decision-making of administrative bodies. The study of administrative justice also encompasses the redress systems by which people can challenge administrative bodies to seek the correction of injustices. For a long time now, scholars have been interested in administrative justice, but without necessarily framing their work as such. Rather than existing under the rubric of administrative justice, much of the research undertaken has existed within sub-categories of disciplines, such as law, sociology, public policy, politics, and public administration. Consequently, although aspects of the topic have attracted rich contributions across such disciplines, administrative justice has rarely been studied or taught in a manner that integrates these areas of research more systematically. This Handbook signals a major change of approach. Drawing together a group of world-leading scholars of administrative justice from a range of disciplines, The Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice shows how administrative justice is a vibrant, complex, and contested field that is best understood as an area of inquiry in its own right, rather than through traditional disciplinary silos"--