What should a court not do during administrative reviews, as per Law Society v Ryan?

In the context of administrative reviews, especially as highlighted in Law Society v Ryan, a court should not re-weigh the evidence that has already been presented during the initial proceedings. This principle emphasizes that courts are not a forum for re-evaluating the factual determinations made by the administrative body; instead, their role is to assess whether the administrative decisions were made in accordance with the law and followed proper procedures.

Re-weighing evidence could undermine the authority of the original decision-maker and disrupt the balance of administrative and judicial powers. Courts focus on ensuring that the process followed by administrative bodies aligns with legal standards and respects the rights of parties involved, rather than substituting their own evaluation of the facts. This principle helps maintain the integrity of administrative processes while ensuring oversight and accountability.

Considering additional evidence not presented can also be problematic as it may affect the fairness of the proceedings and violate the principles of natural justice. Failing to adhere to procedural justice is equally concerning, as it could lead to decisions that are not compliant with due process. Relying solely on expert opinions might not capture all relevant factors affecting the decision, but it does not necessarily constitute an improper action by the court in administrative reviews. Thus, the focus is rightly placed on the integrity of