The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that judicial proceedings immunity blocks a former aide from claiming he faced groundless and malicious arbitration from his work after blowing the whistle on alleged staff mistreatment.

Judicial review is the English administrative law practice of the courts reviewing the exercise of powers by public bodies in terms of their effect on an individual.

Financial Services analysis: Stephen Kosmin, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, who appeared for the defendant in Full Circle Asset Management v Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), reviews Mr Justice Nicol’s decision to dismiss a judicial review challenge pertaining to the approaches of the FOS and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the handling of a complaint against an investment manager.

Public Law analysis: This case concerns the Parole Board recommendations (which are advisory) re a prisoner to transfer (or not) to open conditions and the SSJ’s primary decision-making responsibilities. The case provides a useful review of the most important portfolio of recent cases covering this area of law and practice, along with a systematic review of the relevant Statutory Directions of June 2022 and the Policy Guidance of October 2022. Mr Justice Fordham helpfully develops what he labelled as ‘shorthand terms’ regarding the ‘Progress Duty’ and the ‘Essential Criterion’ for decision-making in this area of the law and practice, with clear links to the common law duties on the decision-maker acting reasonably, giving legally adequate reasons in their decisions and being able to rely on all relevant and contemporaneous evidence. In analysing the case, Fordham J carries out a methodical 7 step approach to such cases to detect with there were any reasonable disagreements between the Parol Board recommendations and the SSJ reasoned decisions on the same. Ultimately, the court found that the relevant expert evidence supported the SSJ’s rejection of the Parol Board recommendation (that the in-mate should spend further time in closed prison for further evaluation, at the present time, before a further application for open prison could be considered) and that the SSJ had a reasonable basis for the decision to depart from the Panel’s recommendation. Written by Dr Mirza Ahmad LLD (Hon), barrister at St Philips Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: This decision of the Administrative Court (Fordham J) analyses: (1) the legal ingredients necessary to sustain a finding of gross negligence manslaughter; and (2) the correct manner of summing-up those matters to a jury, as well as (3) the form of conclusions that are acceptable for a jury to return in an inquest (an investigation process that is statutorily prohibited from determining civil or criminal liability). The judgment is something of a tour de force on the topic that shall be of interest to both inquest practitioners and criminal practitioners, as well as those advising organisations as to health and safety steps and liabilities. Two individuals whose roles were described in the conclusions of an inquest jury finding an unlawful killing (by reason of gross negligence manslaughter) challenged the assistant coroner’s decision to leave manslaughter to the jury as a possible conclusion, the directions that he gave, and conclusion expression. The court dismissed the claim. Written by Philip Rule KC, barrister, No5 Chambers.

Corporate Crime analysis: In R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, the Divisional Court decisively overturned the principle established in Murphy v Media Protection Services (‘the Murphy principle’), which held that ‘save in exceptional cases, prosecutions and appeals in criminal cases should be and will be subject to the criminal costs regime’. The Murphy principle therefore restricted the High Court’s longstanding discretion to award inter partes costs in criminal judicial review cases, including those arising from private prosecutions. The judgment highlights the inconsistent approach courts have taken to costs in criminal-related High Court proceedings. Notably, the Murphy principle was introduced without argument, citation of relevant authorities, or detailed reasoning, despite its significant impact on cost recovery. In Bates, the Court held that section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) provides a general discretion to award costs, without any ‘exceptionality’ requirement. Declaring Murphy per incuriam, the Court restored the High Court’s ability to award costs and ordered costs in favour of Mr Bates. Written by Nicole Jennings, associate at Peters & Peters.

This Practice Note provides an introduction to judicial review in Scotland. For guidance on: • other aspects of judicial review in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in Scotland—grounds of challenge, Judicial review in Scotland—remedies, Judicial review in Scotland—raising a claim and Judicial review in Scotland—protective expenses orders • other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection, and • judicial review in England and Wales, see, for example, Practice Notes: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used and Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol Key • HRA 1998—Human Rights Act 1998 • RCS—Rules of the Court of Session 1994 • SA 1998—Scotland Act 1998 Judicial review is the process by which the courts in Scotland exercise oversight and control over the actings of administrative bodies, both public and private. The court’s role is essentially to review decisions, acts, or failures to act, by public bodies and other official decision makers. A major distinction between judicial review in Scotland and England

This Practice Note considers judicial review grounds of challenge in Scotland. For guidance on: • Other aspects of judicial review in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in Scotland, Judicial review in Scotland—remedies, Judicial review in Scotland—raising a claim and Judicial review in Scotland—protective expenses orders • other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection, and • judicial review in England and Wales, see, for example, Practice Notes: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used and Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol Key: • HRA 1998—Human Rights Act 1998 • ECHR—European Convention on Human Rights • ECtHR—European Court of Human Rights Key grounds of challenge for judicial review by the Scottish courts include: • illegality • irrationality, and • procedural impropriety, and • proportionality all of which are dealt with in more detail below. Illegality Public bodies possess statutory powers and duties which are given to them by Acts of Parliament or secondary legislation. Public

Civil justice reform: see our Practice Note: Civil justice reform in Scotland—virtual hearings and electronic submission of documents for guidance on the current rules and practice in the Scottish civil courts in relation to virtual hearings and the electronic signing, transmission and lodging of documents. This Practice Note considers protective expenses orders (PEOs) in the context of judicial review claims raised in Scotland. For guidance on: • other aspects of judicial review in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in Scotland, Judicial review in Scotland–grounds of challenge, Judicial review in Scotland—remedies and Judicial review in Scotland—raising a claim • other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection, and • the closest equivalent procedure in England and Wales, see Practice Note: Protective costs orders Key: • PEO—Protective Expenses Order • PPD—Public Participation Directive 2003/35/EC • RCS—Rules of the Court of Session 1994 A Protective Expenses Order (PEO) is an order of court that regulates the liability for expenses of a party that raises court

Civil justice reform: see our Practice Note: Civil justice reform in Scotland—virtual hearings and electronic submission of documents for guidance on the current rules and practice in the Scottish civil courts in relation to virtual hearings and the electronic signing, transmission and lodging of documents. This Practice Note offers guidance on the process of raising a judicial review claim in Scotland. For guidance on: • other aspects of judicial review in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in Scotland, Judicial review in Scotland—grounds of challenge, Judicial review in Scotland—remedies and Judicial review in Scotland—protective expenses orders • other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection, and • judicial review in England and Wales, see Practice Notes: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used and Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol Key: • CR(S)A 2014—Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 • CSA 1988—Court of Session Act 1988 • RCS—Rules of the Court of Session 1994 Governing provisions for Scottish judicial review proceedings Judicial

This Practice Note considers the remedies available in a judicial review claim raised in Scotland. For guidance on: • other aspects of judicial review in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Judicial review in Scotland, Judicial review in Scotland—grounds of challenge, Judicial review in Scotland—raising a claim and Judicial review in Scotland—protective expenses orders • issues to consider before bringing a civil claim in a Scottish court and how to start and progress a civil claim in Scotland, see: Scottish DR: prescription and limitation—overview and Scottish DR: case management and evidence—overview respectively, which link through to more detailed guidance • other aspects of Scottish civil litigation, see: Scottish DR: civil appeals and judicial review—overview, Scottish DR: enforcement—overview and Scottish DR: settlement and ADR—overview, which, in turn, link through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of dispute resolution in Scotland • other key areas of Scottish law and procedure, see our Scotland collection, and • judicial review in England and Wales, see Practice Notes: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used and Judicial

STOP PRESS: As of 24 February 2025, the main provisions of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) are in force. Procurements begun on or after this date must be carried out under PA 2023, whereas those begun under the previous legislation (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016, the Concession Regulations 2016, and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011) must continue to be procured and managed under that legislation. See Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. PCR 2015 as assimilated law PCR 2015 are EU-derived domestic legislation and therefore assimilated law under sections 2 and 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. For practical guidance on the status and interpretation of assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. Brexit impact—public procurement The UK public procurement regime derives from EU public procurement laws, and was therefore impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but only to a limited extent. In all material respects, the