How do common-law countries review decisions made by administrative agencies?

In common-law countries, the review of decisions made by administrative agencies is primarily conducted by the ordinary courts rather than through a separate system of administrative tribunals. This practice is rooted in the principle that the rule of law requires all public authorities to be subject to the jurisdiction of the same courts that handle private legal matters.12

When an agency engages in formal adjudication, courts typically perform an appellate review to determine if the agency acted within its legal authority, followed fair procedures, interpreted the law correctly, and based its decision on evidence. If an agency does not produce a formal record, its actions may still be challenged in court through a trial process, where the judiciary examines whether the agency acted within its jurisdiction and had a rational or factual basis for its decision.1

While courts possess the power to invalidate administrative acts, they are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment for that of an agency, often deferring to the agency's specialized expertise. Additionally, many common-law jurisdictions have established specialized administrative tribunals to resolve specific disputes, providing a more informal and rapid alternative to court litigation, though these remain subject to judicial oversight on questions of law.314