header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 June 2021 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7935 / Categories: Features , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

What future for judicial review?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
50417
How stands the government’s reform of judicial review? Michael Zander QC gives a pessimistic assessment
  • Can the virtual unanimity against the need for legislative reform of judicial review succeed in affecting the government’s plans?

The news in the Queen’s Speech that the legislative programme would include a Judicial Review Reform Bill came only days after the close of the government’s six-week consultation on the report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL), chaired by Lord Faulks. Though the subject is one that obviously deserves mature and careful thought, the signs are that the government plans to rush ahead.

Every aspect of this process has been rushed. There was widespread complaint that the timeframe for IRAL was inadequate. The Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA) is bringing judicial review proceedings to establish that the consultation on the IRAL’s report was unlawful in not affording adequate time for consideration and response.

IRAL was plainly Boris Johnson’s response to defeat in the Supreme Court in the two Miller

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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll