header-logo header-logo

07 April 2011 / Robert Rhodes KC
Issue: 7460 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

In the hot seat

Robert Rhodes QC on avoiding the risk of judicial review when chairing a disciplinary tribunal

The growing risk of judicial review can be a constant worry to chairmen of disciplinary tribunals. There are, however, certain straightforward and simple matters which, if properly borne in mind, should minimise this risk.

Fairness

This is the key concept. If this underlines the conduct of the proceedings, the other points set out below will flow from this. Thus no member of the tribunal should be, or appear to be, biased. A financial or proprietary interest in the proceedings will automatically disqualify the member. If a member has a close connection to a party to the proceedings, he will be disqualified from sitting. Thus in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577, [1999] 2 WLR 272, an extradition decision of the House of Lords was set aside because one of the judges was a director (albeit unpaid) of a company controlled by a party

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll