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

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