header-logo header-logo

04 November 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7909 / Categories: Features , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Judicial review does not need legislative reform

Michael Zander on what the authors of De Smith have told the Government’s inquiry

The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL), chaired by Lord Faulks QC, has been asked by the Government: ‘Does judicial review strike the right balance between enabling citizens to challenge the lawfulness of government action and allowing the executive and local authorities to carry on the business of government?’ It would be naïve to ignore the reality that the question comes with a heavily loaded political agenda. The inquiry closed the portal for submissions on 26 October 2020 and is asked to report by the end of the year.

The authors of the leading work on the subject, De Smith’s Judicial Review (Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, Ivan Hare QC, Catherine Donnelly SC and Lord Woolf), have, at my request, very kindly allowed me to publicise their 19-page submission to the Faulks inquiry. (To read the De Smith response in full please visit https://bit.ly/2GoTGkZ.)

Codification?

The Review asks: ‘Whether the amenability of public law decisions

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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