Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The government is inviting views on potential measures for the further reform of Judicial Review (JR). The consultation exercise, which closes on 1 November 2013, seeks views on proposals in a number of key areas, including leapfrogging appeals to the Supreme Court, the creation of a specialist planning chamber, amending the test for standing, and various costs and funding issues.
Judicial review allows the court to consider whether, for example, a government department has gone beyond its powers, a local authority has followed a lawful process or an arms-length body has come to a rational decision. As such, it is a crucial check to ensure lawful public administration. It considers the process of making the decision rather than the decision itself.
The number of judicial reviews brought in recent years has increased and as such the Government is concerned that the process is open to abuse. Some criticisms of the current process include concerns regarding time and money wasted by weak cases brought to generate publicity or to delay implementation of an unpopular decision but one which was properly made. The Government is also concerned that a significant proportion of these 'weak' applications are funded by the tax payer and that, among other things, this is stalling development and infrastructure projects, which would otherwise promote growth and economic recovery.
The Consultation exercise seeks views on a number of areas, including but not limited to:
• the courts' approach to cases, which rely on minor procedural defects that would have made no difference to the outcome of the case
• rebalancing financial incentives 'so that those involved have a proportionate interest in the costs of the case'. This part of the consultation includes questions in relation to paying for permission in JR cases, awarding costs, expanding the circumstances in which a wasted costs order could be made, the position in relation to protective costs orders (PCOs), the costs position in relation to third parties who choose to intervene in JR claims, etc
• speeding up appeals to the Supreme Court in a small number of appropriate (ie nationally significant) cases including the circumstances in which a case should be subject to leapfrogging arrangements, the applicability of any leapfrogging arrangements, whether the requirement for the parties' consent to leapfrogging should be required, etc
• the creation of a specialist Land and Planning Chamber
• locus standi for bringing a JR, including a proposal to restrict standing to those with a 'direct interest' in the case
• mechanisms other than JR for resolving disputes related to the public sector equality duty (PSED)
These proposals follow those in the consultation Judicial Review-Proposals for Reform which ran from December 2012 to January 2013 during which significant objections to the proposals were raised.
Do you have any experience of the Judicial Review process being exploited or used for tactical reasons? Please leave us a comment telling us your thoughts.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Virginia specialises in general domestic and international commercial litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.
Virginia trained, qualified and practiced with Pinsent Masons before moving to Marriott Harrison where she continued in practice for a further seven years.
In practice, Virginia acted in a variety of general commercial disputes covering areas including intellectual property, fraud, defamation, misrepresentation, breach of contract, debt recovery, breach of restrictive covenants and company and shareholders’ disputes.
Virginia is Head of Dispute Resolution at Lexis®PSL and, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution module, her content work focuses on case management and evidence in civil litigation. She also regularly contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog.
0330 161 1234