‘This sounds like a rather odd case, noted on the Garden Court bulletin. It is a refusal to grant permission for Judicial Review of a Council’s refusal to carry out a review of the method it had decided upon to discharge its full housing duty.’
NearlyLegal, 17th February 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘One of the proposals in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill is that a challenge to an unlawful decision should fail if it is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different, had the public authority not acted unlawfully. This compares with the current test which is that the decision should be quashed unless it is inevitable that the decision would be the same.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court is now to include a formally designated Planning Court and permission to apply will be required for section 288 applications against planning decisions in the latest government reforms to judicial review and related proceedings. Ministers have just published their response to the latest reform proposals and the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2014 proposing changes to judicial review.’
Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2014
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Following recent announcements in the press, including a front page headline in The Times this week, the Government published the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on Wednesday, 5 February 2014. Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of important changes to be introduced which seek, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, to prevent judicial review from being a “brake on growth”. However, whilst it has been reported in the national press that the proposals mean that only individuals or groups with a financial interest in a case will be able to bring a challenge, this is inaccurate. The Government originally proposed narrowing the test for standing so as to restrict the availability of judicial review to those with a “direct interest” but that proposal has now been dropped.’
No. 5 Chambers, 6th February 2014
Source: www.no5.com
Regina (A) v Chief Constable of C Constabulary [2014] EWHC 216 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 63
‘The proper application of the non police personnel vetting process set out in the national vetting policy devised by the Association of Chief Police Officers required the adoption of a two-stage test, namely: (i) whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that X was or had been involved in criminal activity; and (ii) if so, whether it was appropriate in all the circumstances for security clearance to be refused.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘This was an application by the widow of Alexander Litvinenko for judicial review of the refusal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order the setting up of a statutory inquiry into his death in London in November 2006. The Secretary of State had been asked to set up such an inquiry by Sir Robert Owen, the judge appointed to conduct the inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death as Assistant Coroner.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The level of fees to be paid under the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 did not breach European Union principles of effectiveness or equivalence.’
WLR Daily, 7th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Lincolnshire County Council has become the latest local authority to face judicial review proceedings over proposed cuts to its libraries.’
Local Government Lawyer, 12th February 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The widow of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko who was killed in London has moved a step closer to a public inquiry into her husband’s death.’
BBC News, 11th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A campaign group is going to the High Court to challenge a move by Lincolnshire County Council to change its library system.’
BBC News, 11th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Last week, the Justice Secretary published the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The implications of his revised proposals for judicial review reform are considered in this week’s roundup, along with controversy over gay rights at the Winter Olympics and recent trends in defamation cases before the Court of Human Rights.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Changes to the rules governing judicial review (JR) claims will ensure that those challenging the decisions of public bodies face a “fair level of financial risk”, the Government has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th February 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘At first sight, proposals full of sound and fury, and signifying not a great deal for planning and environmental challenges. There are some slippery costs changes which we need to look at, but some of the potentially more concerning proposals do not fully apply to this area, as I shall explain. There are also some perfectly sensible proposals about harmonising planning challenges which lawyers have been advocating for years.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th February 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R (on the application of PK) v Harrow LBC (2014) QBD Admin 30 January 2014. The Claimants were the children of M. The family was street homeless and destitute following eviction. It appears that Harrow had decided there was no duty to accommodate M, as the family was referred to Social Services.’
NearlyLegal, 9th February 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Public lawyers across the country are anxiously scrutinising yesterday’s response by the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, to the Judicial Review consultation and the associated Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. They are seeking to ascertain the extent to which access to judicial review will be restricted and, in the case of many firms with legal aid contracts in public law, to see if whether their business will remain financially viable at all.’
UK Constitutional Law Group, 6th February 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Controversial proposals to restrict judicial review will go ahead by way of a “a tough package of reform”, the government confirmed yesterday. Publishing its response to the consultation, Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: “I believe in protecting judicial review as a check on unlawful executive action, but I am equally clear that it should not be abused, to act as a brake on growth.”
LegalVoice, 6th February 2014
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
R (L) v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 47 ; [2014] WLR (D) 44
‘The common law duty to act fairly was engaged when a decision was made as to whether to transfer a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 from a medium to a high security hospital. Where the decision was largely a clinically-based decision with a rationing aspect, there was a need for circumspection as to what procedure was required. Absent urgency, a clinical reason precluding notification, or some other reason such as the exposure of other patients or staff to the risk of harm, the “gists” of the letter of reference to the high security hospital by the hospital that wished to transfer the patient and the assessment by the clinician from the high security hospital ought to be provided to the patient and/or hisrepresentative, and the patient should be afforded an opportunity to make written submissions to the decision-making panel.’
WLR Daily, 29th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Key building projects which generate thousands of jobs in communities across the UK will benefit from changes to tackle costly and unnecessary legal delays under plans to speed up and reform the Judicial Review system announced today by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling.’
Ministry of Justice, 5th February 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘A woman who was stopped and searched by police after her Oyster travel card was refused has had a legal challenge dismissed by the court of appeal.’
The Guardian, 4th February 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024