A COMPARISON OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ILLEGALITY AS DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF MALADMINISTRATION AS DEVELOPED BY THE LOCAL OMBUDSMAN

This thesis compares the basis on which the courts, operating through the judicial review procedure, hold local authorities' actions and inactions to be unlawful, with the basis on which the local ombudsman (commissioner for local administration) makes findings of maladministration in respect of local authorities. It begins with an account of the origins, nature and purpose of both judicial review and ombudsmanship, and considers aspects of the procedure by which each operates. It proceeds principally through an examination of the primary sources contained in the law reports and the local ombudsman reports, placing this material within its common law and statutory context. It concludes that although there are some significant differences between the two avenues of redress, there is a very large degree of overlap in terms of the kind of grievances with which each deals, and the principles which each applies