The following Public Law practice note Produced in partnership with Morayo Fagborun Bennett of Hardwicke Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Although it may not be possible to prevent a claimant from issuing a claim for judicial review, the more robust the decision-making process employed by a public body, the easier it will be to persuade a court to dismiss the claim at an early stage.
CPR 54.1(2)(a) defines a claim for judicial review as:
'a claim to review the lawfulness of—(i) an enactment; or(ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.'
'a claim to review the lawfulness of—
(i) an enactment; or
(ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.'
This Practice Note deals with steps that a public body can take to protect itself against a successful judicial review challenge.
It includes non-exhaustive checklists of considerations and good practice to help reduce successful judicial review permission applications.
Consider for instance:
whether the public body has sufficient information to make a decision
whether the public body has taken into account all material considerations
whether the public body has taken into account any irrelevant considerations
whether a review of the application or decision is required
whether further inquiries or investigations need to be made to enable a decision to be taken
whether the reasons provided by the public body orally and in writing are consistent
is it possible to make a decision within the requisite time frame?
have any required extensions been agreed
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. 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.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
On 29 August 2015, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) published the PRA Rulebook (Rulebook). The transition from the Handbook to the Rulebook was intended to benefit PRA-authorised firms, to access clearer and more concise rules. Alongside the Rulebook, supervisory statements and statements
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intentWounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent is triable only in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove the defendant unlawfully
Codicils may be used for making any alteration in a Will such as to alter the executors or make changes in legacies, whether by addition or deletion but that is by no means their only use. As a general rule, substantial changes are best achieved by means of a new Will and codicils are more
This Practice Note considers the legal concept of mistake in contract law. It examines common mistake, mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, mistake as to identity and mistake as to the document signed (non est factum). It also considers the impact of each of these types of mistake on the contract and
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.