In the light of the modern case law on review on the grounds of error Essay

In the light of the modern case law on review on the grounds of error of law and error of fact, is it still possible to say that - Essay Example In light of modern case law on review on the grounds of error of law and error of fact, to say that judicial review is concerned with the legality and not the merits of a decision remains to be seen in how they determine such cases. A critical analysis reveals that error of law and error of facts are indeed only errors inasmuch as the rules of natural justice apply during decision-making. Even so, sometimes a decision maker may not adhere to legal requirement that makes it mandatory for them to comply with the statutory procedure such as wrongfully admitting evidence in the absence of evidence. There have been concerns and various interpretation as to what happens in such a failure, whether it is reviewable as an error of the law2. It is vital to note that failure has the probability of being an error of the law or just a ground for review. For any possible review, the admissibility for a review is only that the ground is an error of the law and an applicant fit into that ground or t here is a failure. On the grounds of consideration of certiorari, a prerogative writ overturns a defective decision. As such, it is usually up to a plaintiff seeking certiorari to show that a legal defect in making the decision in question is indeed an error of the law. Taking into consideration judicial authority, there are a number of cases that hold in their specific circumstances that a failure by a decision maker to comply with judicial requirement is an error of the law. For instance, it is an error of the law if a tribunal remitted a matter being determined to an office, which had been abolished as was in the case Commonwealth v Angel3. Besides, a failure to give reasons in beach of a statutory obligation is an error of the law as demonstrated in Dornan v Riodan4. Likewise, the same applies when a judge fails to give proper reasons for a decision in breach of the common obligation law to do so as was seen in the case Commissioner for Railways v Peter5. Error of facts on the o ther hand may be seen to have a close relationship with error of law. It appears then that there is always a need to engage in fresh analysis whenever there is a need to distinguish between law and facts, and consequently between error of .aw and error of fact. One should observe that the fundamental part to this analysis between error of fact and error of law is anchored on the fundamentals of the law, which are achieved through interpretation of the law, establishing facts, applying the law, and analysis of their compliance with legal procedure. In layman’s language, an error is committed when something is not done in the way it should be done. Therefore, it is determining of an error using law that creates an error of law. The relationship with error of facts errors of fact are always judicially admissible as errors of law. Even though, errors of fact have two claims. The first one is that wrong findings of material facts impede the very purpose of the law by preventing th e law from applying to material facts when it should. The law fails to apply to material facts in the sense that the real facts do not come before the law for consideration. On the other hand, the law may also fail by failing to apply wen it should indeed apply6. To understand better the error of facts, a