header-logo header-logo

30 July 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7943 / Categories: Features , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Reform of judicial review

53845
Michael Zander QC on whether the Judicial Review and Courts Bill is a cause for concern
  • Whether the Bill is a threat turns basically on the extent to which judges are likely to move away from their traditional approach and get them instead to adopt the government’s agenda.
  • The Independent Review of Administrative Law’s recommendation that Cart be overturned is being given effect.

Of the 48 clauses of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill published last week only the first two are about judicial review (JR). Clause 1, inserting new s 29A in the Senior Courts Act 1981, gives the judges the power to make suspended and prospective quashing orders. Clause 2 overturns the Supreme Court’s decision in Cart thereby preventing use of JR to challenge a decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal against a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal.

Quashing Orders

New s 29A(1) states: ‘A quashing order may include provision— (a) for the quashing not to take effect until a date specified

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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll