header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 February 2009 / Julia Marlow , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Features , Damages
printer mail-detail

Light relief?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Charles Brasted & Julia Marlow review the latest proposals to introduce a damages remedy in judicial review

It is a fundamental principle of judicial review that it does not of itself provide any basis for the award of damages. Damages may only be awarded in judicial review proceedings on the basis of a parallel cause of action in respect of which damages would be an available remedy (such as under the Human Rights Act or EU law). The entitlement to seek damages in such cases is merely a procedural measure intended to obviate the need for a claimant to institute duplicate proceedings.

This position has historically been justified mainly on the ground that the supervisory jurisdiction of the court exists for the benefit of the public at large and not merely to benefit individual claimants—hence it is that all judicial review proceedings are still formally brought in the name of the Queen. In addition, to award damages to an individual would entail substituting the decision of the court for that of the public authority,

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll