header-logo header-logo

Government faces judicial review deadlock

30 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Peers unite to derail government plans to limit judicial review

The government has been urged to drop proposals to overhaul the judicial review process after a series of defeats in the House of Lords this week.

The government wants to clamp down on the number of frivolous challenges being used to hold up policies and is seeking to limit access to judicial review. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers united behind crossbencher Lord Pannick and Labour peers to support three amendments to Pt 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which will uphold legal discretion during judicial reviews.

Law Society President Andrew Caplen says the Society is pleased with the result: “It is clear that many peers share our view that a mechanism to hold the executive to account in the exercise of wide powers should not be lost. If the government acts unlawfully it must be brought to account in the courts.

“The government’s proposals would have restricted access to judicial review for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and made it easier for public bodies to act without regard to the law in some of the most sensitive areas of our lives. The government should drop its proposals.”

Defending the government’s proposals, Conservative peer Lord Faulks said the changes represented a sensible and considered package that would improve the process of judicial review for those with a “proper case” and went on to warn those voting in favour of the amendments that they would be removing altogether any reform at all of judicial review.

A ministry of justice spokesperson says: “These reforms are designed to make sure judicial review continues its crucial role in holding authorities and others to account, but also that it is used for the right reasons and not abused by people to cause delays or to generate publicity for themselves or their organisations at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of the vote. The government will consider how to respond when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.”

The Bill is expected to return to the Lords for its third reading early next month, after the amendments have been considered by the Commons.

 
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Clarke Willmott—Declan Goodwin & Elinor Owen

Corporate and commercial teams in Cardiff boosted by dual partner hire

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

Hill Dickinson—Joz Coetzer & Marc Naidoo

London hires to lead UK launch of international finance team

Switalskis—11 promotions

Switalskis—11 promotions

Firm marks start of year with firmwide promotions round

NEWS
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The next generation is inheriting more than assets—it is inheriting complexity. Writing in NLJ this week, experts from Penningtons Manches Cooper chart how global mobility, blended families and evolving values are reshaping private wealth advice
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming sport, from recruitment and training to officiating and fan engagement. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dr Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys at Law explains how AI now influences everything from injury prevention to tactical decisions, with clubs using tools such as ‘TacticAI’ to gain competitive edges
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll