header-logo header-logo

23 February 2022
Issue: 7968 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Lords on judicial review

Peers should consider whether the introduction of suspended or prospective-only quashing orders in judicial reviews correctly balance ‘providing courts with discretion and placing a presumption on how they should act’, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said

In its report on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill it highlighted ‘some academic disagreement’ as to whether judges were being given discretionary powers or if the orders were mandatory. The committee reported that it has ‘recommended removing the requirement for judges to make suspended or prospective-only quashing orders where they would provide adequate redress and there would not be a good reason not to’.

It also recommended that courts be required to give due consideration to Art 13, ECHR when making the determination. Committee Stage began this week in the House of Lords.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll