header-logo header-logo

03 February 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7919 / Categories: Features , Public , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

The Faulks Review: Heads I win, tails you lose?

38156
Michael Zander on the Faulks Review: will it end as a government stitch-up?
  • Despite the many professional and public bodies, research organisations and practitioners who have responded to the Independent Review of Administrative Law’s call for evidence by declaring there is no case for legislative reform of judicial review, it remains to be seen whether the government will take those views on board.

The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) was launched in July 2020 ‘following the government’s manifesto commitment to guarantee that judicial review (JR) is available to protect the rights of the individual against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays’. The familiar dog-whistle phrase ‘conduct politics by another means’ indicated the political agenda.

The review, chaired by Lord (Edward) Faulks, had five other members: Celina Colquhoun; Professor Carol Harlow QC (Hon), LSE; Nick McBride, college lecturer in law at Pembroke College, University of Cambridge; Professor Alan Page, professor

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll