‘In the field of judicial review, courts have traditionally distinguished review for error of law and review for error of fact. When it comes to reviewing errors of law, courts have typically been comfortable with deciding matters for themselves. By contrast, when it comes to reviewing errors of fact, courts have been much more reluctant to intervene. This makes intuitive sense; determination of the law ought to be done by the reviewing judicial body, as it holds constitutional responsibilities and will typically have greater legal expertise. Determination of the relevant facts, in general, should primarily fall to the body or decision-maker which is closest ‘to the ground’, and thus best able to marshal and consider evidence.’
Full Story
Administrative Court Blog, 12th December 2025
Source: administrativecourtblog.wordpress.com