‘A local authority is entitled to the costs protection conferred on claimants in Aarhus Convention claims, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In the last few years Austerity Britain has generated a large number of judicial review challenges to public spending cuts, particularly against local authorities. Many cases allege that the public body has consulted unlawfully. The legal principles involved have been firmly established. However, in October 2014 the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 394 added a new ingredient to the mix, and the courts are still in the process of working out the implications of that decision.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th March 2015
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, has made it clear that he is “personally opposed” to changes in the costs rules for judicial review oral permission hearings.’
Litigation Futures, 11th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The number of judicial review applications lodged at the High Court fell from 15,600 to just 4,062 last year – caused mainly, but not entirely by the transfer of immigration and asylum cases to the Upper Tribunal.’
Litigation Futures, 10th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The number of civil court judgments leapt by 25% last year as more claims went undefended, official statistics have revealed.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 9th March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘His Honour Judge Jarman QC gave a speech “Administrative Court in Wales: Challenges and Opportunities” at Swansea University on 19 November 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 6th March 2015
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘A disabled adult has successfully challenged in the High Court aspects of a county council’s policy on charging for adult non-accommodation services.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Government’s introduction through regulations of a “no permission, no fee” arrangement for making a legally aided application for judicial review was unlawful, the Divisional Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Lord Chancellor’s Exceptional Funding Guidance (Inquests) (promulgated under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) was unlawful in that it provided a misleading impression of the law for caseworkers considering an application from relatives of a deceased for legal aid to cover representation at an inquest into a death which arose in circumstances which might have engaged article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.’
WLR Daily, 20th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Regulations that would have limited access to judicial review are unlawful, the High Court ruled today.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd March 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
The government has “stood up for the rule of law” and should be proud of its record, the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, has argued, in a strongly-worded speech on the last day of the Global Law Summit.
Litigation Futures, 26th February 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The conventional Wednesbury standard of judicial supervision applied to a decision, taken by the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of his discretion under section 2(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which involved changes to the provision of criminal legal aid services by solicitors.’
WLR Daily, 18th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Courtesy of Hansen Palomares Solicitors comes news of this settled Judicial Review of LB Southwark’s gatekeeping practices on homeless applications. It appears, to put it mildly, that Southwark have had a range of what should have been obviously unlawful policies on homeless applications, and even put them into leaflets and their website.’
NearlyLegal, 22nd February 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
R (James) v HM Prison Birmingham and others [2015] EWCA Civ 58; [2015] WLR (D) 59
‘There was no obligation on a judge to deduct from a term of imprisonment the time spent on remand by a person arrested under section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 for breach of a final gang injunction order under sections 34 to 36 of the 2009 Act, and subsequently imprisoned for contempt of court pursuant to section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and section 120 of the County Courts Act 1984.’
WLR Daily, 9th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A councillor at Winchester City Council has won a High Court judicial review challenge over the local authority’s decision to adopt an updated scheme for a £165m city centre redevelopment without conducting a procurement exercise.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This short case involves the old dilemma of public order law: whether it is right to shut down speech when the speaker himself does not intend to incite violence, but whose presence it is said may lead third parties to commit violence. Indeed the facts of this particular case go further than that , because the applicants had no plans to make any public address during their proposed visit to Britain. It was their presence alone which was feared would inflame “community tensions”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’
Free Movement, 16th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The case of R (On the Application Of Geller & Anor) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 45 was an application to the Court of Appeal against a refusal by the Upper Tribunal to grant permission for judicial review by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, the founders ‘Stop Islamization of America’, referred to by the Secretary of State as an anti-Muslim hate group. This contributor was previously unaware of Geller and Spencer’s work, but after 5 minutes on YouTube was in rare agreement with the Secretary of State. They had planned to visit the UK in the aftermath of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, to address a rally planned by the English Defence League in Greenwich on Saturday 29 June 2013, armed forces day.’
Full story
Free Movement, 10th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Lord Justice Fulford and Mrs Justice Lang DBE have rejected Rights of Womens much needed challenge against the regulations (regulation 33) on domestic violence. For practitioners who work in the field of domestic violence and for people who care about gender based violence this is a disappointing and somewhat confusing blow.’
The World of Family Law (Garden Court Chambers), 4th February 2015
Source: www.gcfamily.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025