The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has announced plans to launch a selection exercise in May 2025 to recruit 25 District Judges across five regions: the Midlands, North East, Northern, South West and Wales. To assist prospective applicants, the Judicial Office will host an online pre-application seminar on 23 April 2025, aimed at providing guidance on preparing for the JAC's selection process. Eligible candidates must have five years' post-qualification legal experience and at least 15 sitting days as a judge or in a quasi-judicial capacity. The JAC particularly encourages applications from under-represented groups, including women, ethnic minorities, disabled candidates, solicitors and Chartered Legal Executives.

In assessing a claim for general damages, the practitioner should start by considering the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG). The JCG classify injuries

The Guidelines classify injuries according to the part of the body and degree of severity. The appropriate award is given as a range with some guidance as to what features would justify a higher or lower award. In practice, no assessment of damages takes place without the JCG.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: A Recorder in the County Court has held that the brackets for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA) in the Judicial College Guidelines should be adjusted to reflect the significant increases in inflation that have occurred in the UK in recent months. The Recorder held that, since publication of the Guidelines in April 2022, inflation had been running at levels not seen since the 1970s. This was a change in circumstance that the court needed to take into account in valuing PSLA in personal injury claims. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

The Judicial College has announced an interim update of the Crown Court Compendium Parts I and II. These updates reflect recent relevant case law and include revised recommendations for handling email exchanges between the judge and advocates, as well as guidance on situations where a defendant, after being deemed fit and having their case referred back to court, becomes unfit to plead again.

DR analysis: In R (o.a.o. Ellaway) v Cardiff County Council & Viridor Waste Management Limited, the Administrative Court summarised many of the key components of Judicial Review (JR) and the criteria for obtaining permission to bring a claim for JR. This was in the context of determining an application for permission to bring a claim for JR. As such, it acts as a useful ‘checklist’ to practitioners involved in such applications and who are considering their prospects of success.

Local Government analysis: This case provides useful guidance for governing boards on the process to follow in the event that an Independent Review Panel (IRP) recommends they reconsider whether or not to reinstate a permanently excluded pupil. The judge dismissed all four grounds of the application for Judicial Review, concluding that the claimant’s submissions were essentially a challenge to the merits of the decision. The judgment gives useful guidance on the reconsideration process under the Department for Education’s Statutory Guidance on School Exclusions 2017 including the constitution of such panels and the approach they are expected to take. The case also provides commentary on bias, the importance of risk assessments when looking at the second limb of the exclusions test and emphasises that having good reasons for not following particular aspects of statutory guidance will not automatically render a decision unlawful or irrational. Written by Hayley O’Sullivan, senior associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Public Law analysis: The High Court has ruled that the fair-minded and informed observer would be entitled to conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision of a district judge (‘the judge’) in the Magistrates’ Court was likely to be influenced by the desire to decide the Ladybill case in a way which validated, after the event, his earlier decision in a case called Emeraldshaw. The challenge was brought by way of judicial review in respect of the judge’s decision dated 23 May 2024, refusing to recuse himself from hearing proceedings between Ladybill and Rotherham Borough Council (‘the interested party’). Prior to that the judge had handed down a decision dated 21 March 2024 in the case of Sheffield City Council v Emeraldshaw Ltd, which was a claim by the council for payment of non-domestic rates alleged to be owing in respect of periods between June 2021 and November 2022. The judge found that Emeraldshaw was liable to pay the rates and Emeraldshaw sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review. Emeraldshaw and Ladybill are companies within the MCR Property Group. Developments in the Emeraldshaw case later catalysed an application made on behalf of Ladybill that the judge should recuse himself from hearing the Ladybill case. The High Court found that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed a Judicial Review application regarding the lawfulness of an Education, Health and Care Plan (‘EHCP’) issued by the London Borough of Islington, after finding that the First Tier Tribunal was a ‘suitable alternative remedy’. The claimants sought to bring a Judicial Review claim in circumstances where there was an existing appeal against the same EHCP in the First Tier Tribunal Special Educational Needs and Disability ('FTT'). The claimant’s argument was that the appeal in the FTT was not an adequate remedy because of the delay in the scheduled hearing. Ultimately, the Judge ruled that the FTT was the ‘appropriate forum for the complaints made about the EHCP to be ventilated and resolved’ and this was not an exceptional case justifying departure from the well-established principle that Judicial Review is a remedy of last resort. Written by Tamara Dasht, associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

A regularly published set of guidelines setting out appropriate brackets of awards for various injuries.

Judicial administration refers to the systems, processes and organisational arrangements through which courts and judges manage the business of justice, rather than the substance of individual cases. It covers case allocation and listing, court timetabling, management of judicial workloads, deployment of judges, support for judicial decision-making, and the provision and governance of court staff and resources. In the UK and Ireland it is generally a descriptive term rather than a defined statutory concept, though specific aspects (for example, case management powers, court rules, and the roles of heads of division or presidents of courts) are set out in legislation, procedural rules and practice directions. Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, judicial administration usually denotes the separation of functions between the independent judiciary and court service bodies (such as HM Courts & Tribunals Service or the Courts Service of Ireland), and the role of senior judges in overseeing the efficient and fair operation of the courts. It is significant for issues such as access to justice, delay, judicial independence, allocation of judicial resources, and the interface between the judiciary, the executive and court users.

an ADR process where the parties appoint a judge to act as neutral and make a non-binding appraisal (evaluation) of the likely outcome if the dispute goes to court following presentations by the parties. Very similar to early neutral evaluation (ENE) with a judge appointed to evaluate the case rather than a lawyer or expert in the relevant field