header-logo header-logo

Light relief?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll