I. IntroductionFrom the outset, Hogan and Morgan make it clear that the scrutiny of administrative discretion is a difficult area of ​​law to master, in particular pointing out that "the formulation of a precise test is particularly difficult because it has been applied to such a wide range of the topic." Indeed, the practice of controlling administrative discretion involves numerous interconnected factors and has characterized the judicial system for many years. Even today, “the law as it relates to…discretionary power is in a state of flux.” When entering the arena of judicial review, there is a fine line to walk in terms of the balance between the need for judicial review and the maintenance of judicial review. adequate level of curial deference. In an attempt to balance these conflicting interests and ultimately arrive at the most equitable decision-making process, courts have gone through a series of stages. In terms of unreasonableness, leading the review, case law arose from the controversial Wednesbury case. This essay aims to trace the progression of the law in this area, from Wednesbury unconscionability to the modern position outlined in the Meadows case, and ultimately suggests that the adoption of a proportionality test, such as a separate chief reviewer, is advantageous and would be very welcome within the framework of Irish administrative law. This essay will analyze where Meadows left this potential. It will be noted at any time that this is a difficult proposal, involving a large number of considerations, but at the same time postulating that a well-reasoned proportionality test could contribute greatly to achieving an ideal balance for administrative control.II. The foundations... at the heart of the charter... a commitment to justice, and it's a shame they didn't do that. In essence, the only positive aspect to come out of the Meadows ruling is the recognition of proportionality as an important element of Irish administrative control. The elements of proportionality give the court broader power, which is believed to be beneficial and has been endorsed by commentators and courts in many other jurisdictions. The aim, here, is to balance the rights correctly; although Wednesbury was a clear failure, proportionality is the correct approach. While proportionality has not made its full presence felt in the post-Meadows jurisdiction, and this failure may be seen as a misstep in Irish judicial reasoning on administrative discretion, the foundations have certainly been laid for greater development in this area, through accepting a semblance of proportionality in Irish law.