header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 June 2009 / Harriet Dedman , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7373 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Public
printer mail-detail

A model consultation?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Charles Brasted & Harriet Dedman consider confidentiality & disclosure in public consultations

Two recent decisions in judicial review challenges against the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—R (Eisai) v NICE [2008] EWCA Civ 438 [2008] All ER (D) 02 (May) and R (Servier Laboratoires) v NICE [2009] EWHC 281 Admin, [2009] All ER (D) 217 (Feb)—cast significant light on the standard to be applied to the requirement of adequate disclosure in public consultations, and how the competing demands of confidentiality and disclosure are to be balanced. 

Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Eisai, Lord Justice Richards noted (at [33]) that the judgment “depends not on the resolution of any real dispute about the legal principles, but on the application of well established principles to the particular context”.

That may be somewhat modestly to underplay the assistance that the judgment provides those seeking to identify with precision the standards to be applied, but it is an accurate reflection of the legal background against which these cases fall

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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll