Article 469A from a planning law perspective

Abstract

Review of the legality of administrative action is aimed at submitting public authorities to the rule of law and at protecting the rights of individuals in the process. In a demand for judicial review, the Courts seek to establish whether the public Authority in question exercised its powers within the limits set out by Parliament. Differently from cases under appeal, the Courts do not review both the legality and the merits of a case. In fact when it comes to judicial review, the courts are precluded from ‘substituting their own discretion for that of an authority in which the discretion has been confided’. In other words, judicial review merely focuses on the legality of the particular administrative act without entering into the substantive merits. This principle was upheld in a number of domestic judgments amongst which, in the relatively recent judgment in the names of Nazzareno Scerri et. vs Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar l-Ambjent u l-Ippjanar et., decided by the First Hall, Civil Court wherein the said court specifically noted that: ‘L-ghan wara kawza ta’ din ix-xorta m’huwiex biex id-diskrezzjoni li jkollha l-awtorita’ pubblika jigi sostitwit b’dik tal-qorti.’ Interestingly, there was no written legislation regulating judicial review up until the 1980’s, and yet, the Maltese Courts had held to have the power to review administrative acts, particularly so when such acts were thought to be in violation of human rights. At the time, the general rule was to supplement the legislative deficiencies using common law principles. This notion was highlighted in the seminal case in the names Cassar Desain James vs James Louis Forbes7 presided by the late Chief Justice Sir Arturo Mercieca and was subsequently echoed in a string of other judgments.