header-logo header-logo

22 September 2011 / John Eames , David Burrows
Issue: 7482 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

An open road?

Has the judicial review route from the Upper Tribunal re-opened to traffic, ask David Burrows & John Eames

Two recent cases have given the Supreme Court a relatively early opportunity to review the workings of the new administrative appeals scheme set up under Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007), Pt 1 (which came into operation on 3 November 2008), and of the varied jurisdictions which are covered by the tribunals set up under it (R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal, R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 28, [2011] All ER (D) 149 (Jun), heard alongside Scottish case Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29, [2011] All ER (D) 150 (Jun)).

In particular, the judgment in Cart provided an opportunity to look at operation of the appellate Upper Tribunal and the extent to which any decision it makes not to give permission

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll