In Defence of Classical Administrative Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21299770 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mark Elliott (0000-0003-4402-6600, University of Cambridge, corresponding author), Philip Murray (Robinson College) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Pages | 1-34 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-16 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Cambridge Law Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0008-1973 • E-ISSN: 1469-2139 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0008197325101062 |
| OpenAlex | W4417360328 |
| Language | EN |
The classical account of administrative law, which holds that unlawful administrative acts are void ab initio and that judicial review remedies such as quashing orders are merely declaratory of such acts’ legal status, appears to be placed in doubt by a range of recent legislative developments, judicial pronouncements and academic commentary. However, the classical account is not only capable of withstanding those apparent challenges: it is constitutionally imperative if collateral challenge is to be maintained and the rule of law thereby upheld
Administrative law · Collateral · Duty · Judicial review · Legislature · Standard of review · Energy Law and Policy · Legal Issues in South Africa · Ombudsman and Human Rights
| Highly cited | No |
|---|