header-logo header-logo

Judicial review reform “worrying”

12 February 2014
Issue: 7594 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

MoJ proposals could “price claimants out of bringing a claim”

Public lawyers have criticised government proposals on judicial review, which include procedural defect reform and financial restrictions. 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) unveiled its response to its consultation, Judicial review: proposals for further reform last week. It proposes that parties will be able to bypass the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court. On the financial side, the use of protective costs orders will be restricted to exceptional cases with a clear public interest, the identities of financial backers of judicial review will need to be disclosed, interveners will be required to pay their own legal costs, and applicants who take their case to an oral hearing will be asked to pay part of the defendants’ (usually the government’s) legal bill.

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) said it was concerned that “the financial reforms will price claimants out of bringing a claim by increasing the potential costs if unsuccessful”. 

The MoJ has dropped plans to introduce a test for “standing”, which would have restricted eligibility to bring an application to those with a direct interest. This would have had the effect of preventing campaigning groups and charities from bringing claims on behalf of individuals. 

However, it has decided to reform the common law test of inevitability, under which the courts may refuse permission where the outcome would have been no different regardless of a procedural defect. Instead, a court will have a statutory obligation to refuse permission where it considers it “highly likely” that the procedural defect made no difference.

Charles Brasted, partner at Hogan Lovells, says this reform is “worrying”.

“You can’t always know at the permission stage how it would have been different, and if the procedure is wrong then that is a matter of public interest,” he says.

“The idea that there should be an absolute bar to proceedings is to confuse the question of merit with the core issue of whether the process is lawful, so that’s a difficult point and it is disappointing that the government has not listened. One has to wonder how judges will approach this.”

Issue: 7594 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll