West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 is a Scots administration law case dealing with judicial review.
[1] In its decision, the Inner House laid down the defining principles of judicial review in Scotland and the test for invoking the Court of Session's jurisdiction.
[3] The Court of Session held that does not require that the decision complained should have any public law element in order to be reviewable: … the Court of Session has power, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, to regulate the process by which decisions are taken by any person or body to whom a jurisdiction, power or authority has been delegated or entrusted by statute, agreement or any other instrument The public or private nature of the inferior body or tribunal is not decisive, nor is it necessary to enquire whether the decision of the inferior body or tribunal is administrative in character.
The law of Scotland is different from the law of England on this matter: see, for England, R v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain ex parte Wachmann[4] in which Simon Brown J held that a decision of the Chief Rabbi to terminate a rabbi's employment was not reviewable: to attract the court's supervisory jurisdiction, there must be ‘not merely a public but potentially a governmental interest in the decision-making power in question.’ [at page 1046, emphasis added].
You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.This article related to government in the United Kingdom or its constituent countries is a stub.