header-logo header-logo

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

Government faces judicial review deadlock

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll