header-logo header-logo

05 February 2009 / Julia Marlow , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Features , Damages
printer mail-detail

Light relief?

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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