‘The Police Federation says it wants a judicial review of the police watchdog’s decision to investigate three officers who met the MP at the centre of the “plebgate” row.’
BBC News, 12th January 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina (Evans) v Cornwall Council [2013] EWHC 4109 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 510
‘The determination of whether prior approval was required for the development of agricultural buildings under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 required a summary assessment and the principles relating to applications for planning permission under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 were not material considerations for that purpose. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework guidance was inapposite in such cases, and section 66(1) of the Planning (Listing Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the case law thereunder was of no application.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On 20 December 2013 judgment was handed down in the first judicial review of a decision of the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO”) to reach a substantive hearing. The judgment will be of interest to lawyers and complainants wishing to challenge unappealable decisions of LeO. It is particularly (though not only) relevant to LeO decisions which direct a reduction in fees. This is an area which, in view of the absence of a limit on the amount by which LeO can reduce fees, has caused particular controversy.’
4 New Square, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘Does the Legal Ombudsman have teeth? That was, in effect, the question before the High Court in Layard Horsfall, a judicial review brought by a former solicitor against a decision by the Ombudsman to reduce his fees following a complaint by one of his clients. The Court’s answer was a very clear yes. Where the Ombudsman has made her decision properly, taking relevant factors into account, it is likely to withstand judicial review challenge.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Claimants who had unsuccessfully sought asylum and were granted at the age of 16½ discretionary leave to remain until they reached the age of 17½ had an effective remedy in judicial review to challenge the initial rejection of their asylum claims.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Where, in a case involving alleged breaches of rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court of Appeal was faced with a conflict between decisions of the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, the court could in appropriate circumstances dismiss the appeal and grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between the domestic law and that of the European Court, without hearing argument or expressing its views on the case.’
WLR Daily, 9th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has ruled that a council has the power to provide support for a disabled child even when his Roma Gypsy family are working in different parts of the country and outside the council’s borders.’
Local Government Lawyer, 6th December 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Asylum seeker who was returned to UK in a failed deportation attempt will stay in the country pending judicial review.’
The Guardian, 5th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court, 4th December 2013
‘The Supreme Court has clarified the principles to be applied when considering the welfare of children in deportation cases. The following summary is based on the Supreme Court’s Press Summary.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In R(Alansi) v Newham LBC, Stuart-Smith J held that, although Ms Alansi had a legitimate expectation that she would remain a priority homeseeker on Newham’s housing register, Newham had not acted unreasonably and in abuse of its power by withdrawing its representation. It is a case which demonstrates (again) just how hard it is to shoehorn a genuine grievance into a successful JR challenge, doubly so in the context of a local authority allocation scheme.’
NearlyLegal, 1st December 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A new challenge was filed yesterday to the badger cull extension presently under way in the South West of England.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R (on the application of MK) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council. A judicial review raising the extent of a Council’s duties and powers under s.17 Children Act 1989 and s.1 Localism Act 2011 (the general power of competence) in providing housing for someone not otherwise eligible for housing assistance.’
NearlyLegal, 26th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘The legal battle over where the remains of Richard III should be buried has been adjourned at the High Court. A judicial review will decide whether the procedure that led to his bones being excavated in Leicester and the decision to reinter them at the city’s cathedral, was conducted correctly.’
BBC News, 26th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘New certification provisions introduced in 2013, in so far as they purported to empower the Home Secretary automatically to terminate any existing proceedings for judicial review of a direction excluding the claimant from the United Kingdom on national security grounds, were outside the powers conferred by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 as amended.’
WLR Daily, 21st November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘An “unseemly and undignified” legal battle over where the remains of the last Plantagenet king of England, Richard III, should be laid to rest resumes on Tuesday, 528 years after his death and a year after his skeleton was found under a Leicester car park. Richard’s remains are currently in a laboratory at Leicester University.’
The Guardian, 26th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘One of a couple of cases on intentional homelessness and affordability of accommodation.’
NearlyLegal, 24th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Ignaoua, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1498. A certificate issued by the Home Secretary under Section 2 C of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”), as inserted by Section 15 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”), did not terminate existing judicial review proceedings in relation to an exclusion direction which had been certified.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Hurzat v Hounslow LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013. What is the relationship between Housing Act 1996 Part VII and Children Act 2004? Does the duty under s.11 Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children have a bearing on decisions on intentional homelessness under Housing Act 1996? While this case provides a partial answer, it was not, I think, a great case on the facts for testing the interplay of the Acts.’
NearlyLegal, 24th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
© Inner Temple Library 2024