Government according to law
The landmark case of Entick v Errington marks the triumph of the principle of legality, which provides that a public body, in exercising its power endorsed by authority, must be able to identify the precise legal source of that power. The courts are vested with the duty to correct any abuse of power by the executive and the judges are free to exercise this jurisdiction independently. Since then the courts have not wavered in their effort in correcting any abuse of power by the executive . In practical terms, the courts are rather vigilant in refining the principle of judicial review, a mechanism through which compliance by public authorities with the law can be enforced. Even though judicial review is a modern invention , its effectiveness in identifying unlawfulness is too substantial to be neglected.
A decision to quash to not free-standing – it is subject to a set of procedures. The ‘standing rule’ is a primary test determining whether an applicant has the right to a judicial review claim. It also provides that for a government action to be challenged in court, there must exist individuals affected by the alleged unlawful government action. In the case of AXA Insurance Limited The courts, being procedurally limited, may be placed at a disadvantage when they attempt to rule a government action unlawful where the effect of action concerns a short period of time . Such a procedure seriously hinders the courts from evaluating the lawfulness