header-logo header-logo

29 November 2024 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Nuisance
printer mail-detail

Judicial review refused

199170
Does the existence of a suitable alternative remedy rule out the option of judicial review? Nicholas Dobson weighs up the Supreme Court’s view
  • The Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the appeal on the basis of a suitable alternative remedy.
  • It should have considered whether there were good grounds of appeal on the claim’s merits. The case was remitted accordingly to the Court of Appeal.

Judicial review is a claim to review the lawfulness of (among other things) ‘a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function’ (Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 54(1)). Court permission is needed for a judicial review claim (CPR 54(4)). Forms of judicial review relief are discretionary, as is the procedure itself. For instance, per s 31(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, a declaration may be made, or injunction granted, where the High Court considers, having regard (among other things) to all the circumstances of the case, ‘it would be just and convenient for the declaration to

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll