Outline the fundamental essentials of an action based on judicial review Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. It is a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The types of decision which may fall within the range of judicial review include decisions of local authorities in the exercise of their duties to provide various welfare benefits and special education for children in need of such education, certain decisions of the immigration authorities and immigration appellate authority, decisions of regulatory bodies and decisions relating to prisoner's rights. Judicial review may be very useful for example it gives room for constitutional bills that is needed by the country to be created even when the judicial branch do not think so and therefore preventing a flawed system. However, judicial review may not be best when arguing that a decision was incorrect. There are alternative remedies, such as appealing against the decision to a higher court. According to Lord Diplock, the grounds for judicial review are illegality, irritationality and procedural impropriety. This therefore means some fundamental essentials of an action based on judicial review is for the existing decision to be illegal or unreasonable. Illegality and irritationality are known as substantive grounds of judicial review because they relate to the substance of the disputed decision. Procedural impropriety is a procedural ground because it is aimed at the decision making procedure rather than the content of decision itself. In terms of illegality, a decision may be illegal for many reasons. Some of these include when the decision is taken by the wrong person;