Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) (before proportionality analysis had made its leap to the British legal system via the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), Wednesbury review had developed this more robust operation, in connection with a developing “human rights-consciousness infiltrat[ing] administrative law”, and equivalents were established in Anglo-Australasian public law.38 Ultimately, however, it was replaced in the UK, after the domestication of the ECHR, with the “more precise and more sophisticated” criteria of proportionality analysis, and its “somewhat greater” intensity of review.39 In South Africa, where these developments were acknowledged and integrated, 40 the reasonableness standard also received a new human rights-protecting orientation, via its development in the context of the Bill of Rights. Here, the standard represented a more radical departure from its Wednesbury origins. This was notable in relation to the developing administrative law jurisprudence, but also with respect to economic and social rights.41 When, in early commentary on Grootboom, Cass Sunstein celebrated the case’s 38 Taggart, supra note 37, 432. Id. at 438; see R (on the application of Daly) v Sec. State for the Home Dept [2001] 2 AC 532 (HL), para 27. Thus, held Lord Steyn, while “most cases would be decided in the same way whichever approach is adopted”, proportionality “may require the reviewing court to assess the balance which the decision-maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational and reasonable decisions”; and secondly, the test may go further than the assessment of relevant considerations, “inasmuch as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations”. Id. See also Margit Cohn, Legal Transplant Chronicles: The Evolution of Unreasonableness and Proportionality Review of the Administration in the United Kingdom, 58 Am. J. Comp. L. 583 (2012). 40 E.g., Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v. Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 S SA 490 (CC); Minister of Health v. New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2006 2 SA 311 (SA) para 108, with Chaskalson CJ noting that reasonableness under s 33(1) of the Sth Afr. Const. “is a variable but higher standard, which in many cases will call for a more intensive scrutiny of administrative decisions that would have been competent under the interim Constitution”. 41 Quinot & Liebenberg, supra note 33, 202-3, 210-9. 39 8