‘In R. (on the Application of LXR) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) [2025] EWCA Civ 1608 (“LXR”), the Court of Appeal was again confronted by the difficulties in distinguishing questions of fact from questions of law in judicial review cases. Classifying a question before a decision maker as one of fact or law allows courts to calibrate the intensity of review: questions of fact are generally best answered by administrative decision makers and questions of law are generally best answered by courts. This makes sense. Why should judges determine facts, where that task has been allocated by Parliament to an expert public official? The problem, however, is that facts raise legal questions and legal rules are fact-sensitive. Explaining why a question is one of fact or law is not straightforward. Attempting to separate questions of law and fact into neat, abstract categories amounts to a Sisyphean task. This explains courts’ reference to “policy” or “pragmatism” when justifying their conclusions in such cases, which can obscure, rather than illuminate, their reasoning.’
Full Story
Cambridge Law Journal, 23rd October 2026
Source: www.cambridge.org