R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Walker [2000] 1 WLR 806

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The Ministry of Defence established a criminal injuries compensation scheme for servicemen who were victims of violent crimes abroad. The criteria for this scheme excluded injuries sustained in war zones. Walker challenged the Ministry's decision not to compensate him for injuries he incurred in Bosnia, arguing that the Ministry had incorrectly interpreted the scheme, acted with Wednesbury unreasonableness, and frustrated his legitimate expectation of receiving compensation.

Issue: Whether the Ministry of Defence’s decision not to compensate Walker was lawful, considering his claims regarding misinterpretation of the scheme and procedural fairness.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords ruled that the Ministry's interpretation of the scheme was correct and that the decision-making process was not procedurally unfair.

Key Judicial Statements: The court clarified the standards for judicial review, stating that the courts will interfere with administrative decisions if they are procedurally unfair or based on a misinterpretation of the law. Additionally, a decision may be overturned if it is deemed so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could make it.

💡 LevelUpLaw: This case illustrates the principles of judicial review, particularly the grounds for interfering with administrative decisions and the significance of procedural fairness and correct legal interpretation in public law.