By judicial review of administrative action, a court reviews the legality of the actions of the executive. Judicial review is concerned with establishing whether correct procedures were followed and whether the laws correctly interpreted and applied. Because judicial review of common law does not examine the merits of the administrative decision, and because judicial review cannot guarantee a decision to reverse administrative decision, the administrative law remedies, and more are not adequate because they do not provide proper review of questions of law review on the merits of the decision.

Judicial review may indirectly allow the merits of a decision to be reviewed on the grounds of unreasonableness, regard for irrelevant considerations or no regard to relevant considerations and other principles. The notion of unreasonableness is that a decision is beyond power being so unreasonable that no reasonable person could be expected to have taken it. Caselaw now tends to place a burden on the administrative decision maker to show that a decision was based on relevant considerations rather than irrelevant ones, or if the decision failed to take into account relevant considerations.

The ancient prerogative writs originally only available to the Crown in relation to administrative law of the writ of certiorari, which is redirected by Superior Court to remove a matter of the judicial character for better trial, a command to certify. It quashes a decision which is beyond power or affected by error. There is a writ of prohibition which is issued to forbid an ankle decision which would be beyond power. There is also the writ of mandamus which is a writ of demand to compel the performance of a public duty according to law.

The other major branch of judicial review common-law is the principle of natural justice which isn't decision maker must act fairly common in good faith, in a judicial manner and without bias, and give persons affected an opportunity to present their case. A decision may be invalid if it does not fulfil the common-law requirement of procedural fairness giving a person a chance to present their case like the rights of apartment being expelled from a partnership. The strain securities and investments commission defines procedural fairness in seven principles which include the opportunity to be heard, entitlement to a notice, the right to an impartial decision maker, findings of fact is to be made on sound basis, there being no onus of proof, court practice of not applying, applying policy and precedence and it should also be noted that procedural fairness depends on the words of statute and the particular facts, including the nature of the enquiry, subject matter, the rules being applied in the interests of the individual has balanced against the interests and purposes, whether public or private, which statute seeks to advance will protect or permits to be taken into account as legitimate considerations. Procedural fairness includes the requirement to balance the interests of all the parties concerned including third parties. These two major elements of judicial review being under the doctrine of beyond power, and natural justice combined with the notion of procedural fairness are the common law remedies which are available as an element of administrative law. If there is a government decision that has been made that you think you need to challenge, it is advisable that you get legal advice in relation to a matter like this.