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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll