dls wrote:Are you saying the scenario I presented above that despite the finding of unlawfulness on the two occasions the judge should not send the decision back to the public authority
No. I am saying the opposite, that if you ask for a judicial review and it succeeds, then the usual outcome is that the decision is vacated, and is sent back to the authority to do it again. That a decision may have been made incorrectly twice makes little difference. That is what a request for a judicial review is. It is essential to a review that the responsibility for the decision stays where it is.
Succeed is not always equal to Quashing in Judicial Review according to S31 of the Senior Courts Act.
Let me rephrase my question this way: What will you say if the judge decides that looking at the rules of the public authority the individual only needs a breach on two occasions and not a breach on four occasions for the public authority to make the fatal decision and that it follows that despite her findings against the public authority of unlawfulness in the other two instances that the Judicial Review must be dismissed?