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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll