header-logo header-logo

02 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Concerns over judicial review curbs

Immigration lawyers express dismay at government’s proposals

The government is to implement the majority of its controversial proposals on judicial review—prompting widespread concern among immigration lawyers.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said last week the changes would stop judicial review being used as “a cheap delaying tactic”. His department singled out immigration-related applications for criticism—8,734 out of 11,359 judicial review applications in 2011 were to overturn an immigration decision, but only 607 were considered suitable for a hearing and 31 ultimately successful.

The changes include withdrawing the right to a hearing in person if a written application is declared “totally without merit”.

Applicants whose written application is turned down will have to pay a £215 court fee.

The time limit for applying for a judicial review will be halved from three months to six weeks for challenges to planning decisions, and reduced from three months to four weeks for challenges to procurement decisions.

However, the government has dropped two of its proposals: scrapping oral renewals for cases which have already had a hearing on substantially the same matter; and clarifying when the time limit starts for cases where there is a continuing issue or multiple decisions.

Sarah Daley, barrister at Garden Court North chambers, said: “I certainly don’t agree that it is a ‘cheap delaying tactic’.

“The real problem, that they haven’t dealt with or don’t want to deal with, is the really poor quality of decision making in the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Home Office, and the UKBA’s unwillingness to engage with you at an early stage. You must write a letter before action before applying for judicial review so they have an opportunity to engage with you long before you go to court, but they don’t.

“‘Totally without merit’ is a very worrying development. It is entirely new. The civil courts do have this but it is mainly used for vexatious litigants. There is a definite possibility that there could be a bad decision. Judges make mistakes. They are not infallible.”

Garden Court North is organising a meeting next week for concerned immigration practitioners in the north to discuss the proposals. Call 0161 236 1840 for further details.

Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll