header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011 / Natsai Manyarara
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Permission to review

Natsai Manyarara examines the amenability of judicial review of the Upper Tribunal

The Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review available to unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) in its recent judgment in Cart. The debate centred upon the effect of the creation of a new and integrated tribunal structure under TCEA 2007. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the Upper Tribunal was not amenable to judicial review other than in the wholly exceptional circumstances of an outright excess of jurisdiction or a procedural irregularity which denied the right to a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach and held that the same test as for second appeals should be applied by the High Court in considering applications for permission to bring a judicial review claim against an unappealable decision of the Upper Tribunal (see R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan) (FC) (Appellant) v The

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

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
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
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’
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll