header-logo header-logo

11 February 2022 / John Cleverly , Azeem Suterwalla
Issue: 7966 / Categories: Opinion , Constitutional law , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Judicial review: reading the runes

71764
John Cleverly & Azeem Suterwalla consider the potentially far-reaching & unexpected effects of proposals in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill has now entered the House of Lords. It will not likely be brought into effect until early to mid-2022. While we consider that the Bill does not have the far-reaching constitutional implications that some have suggested, the introduction of suspended quashing orders could in fact allow some claims to succeed that would previously have failed.

Suspended quashing orders

The Bill would introduce a new provision (29A) into the Senior Courts Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) which would allow judges to ‘undo’ (or ‘quash’) something that the government has done from a particular point in time. Previously, the relief that was available to a claimant was to have a court decide that the government’s actions were unlawful and had effectively never been taken. That is clearly quite a dramatic order for a court to make.

Now, if the Bill becomes law, courts

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll