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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll