Supreme Court, 9th October 2013
Supreme Court, 9th October 2013
“An extraordinary story which would have raised our eyebrows at its implausibility had it come from our spy novelists. In late 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by polonium-210 given to him in London. He was an ex-Russian Federation FSB agent, but by then was a UK citizen. He had accused Putin of the murder of the journalist Anna Politovskaya. He may or may not have been working for MI6 at the time of his death. The prime suspects for the killing are in Russia, not willing to help the UK with its inquiries. But rightly, in one form or another, we want to know what really happened.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“A High Court judge has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the first scheme to be promoted by a local authority under the infrastructure planning and consenting regime contained in the Planning Act 2008.”
Local Government Lawyer, 4th October 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
“A leading East Midlands firm is to take court action against the lord chancellor Chris Grayling over restrictions on its legal aid contract.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has launched its own review of how to improve the conduct of judicial review cases in light of the government’s own proposals.”
Litigation Futures, 2nd October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“The president of the Supreme Court has urged the government to tread very carefully when considering whether to restrict the ability of people to bring judicial reviews.”
Litigation Futures, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Three families are challenging the government in court in a bid to prove its benefits cap is unlawful.”
BBC News, 2nd October 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Another bedroom tax judicial review has just been issued.”
Nearly Legal 30th September 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“I did an initial post here summarising this opinion from the A-G to the CJEU saying that the UK was in breach of two EU Directives about environmental assessment and pollution control – the breaches concerned our system for litigation costs. It struck me that there was a lot in the opinion, and after some re-reads, I continue to think so. So I will deal in this post with one aspect, namely the finding that the UK is in breach, in requiring an undertaking as to damages by the claimant to back up the claimant’s interim injunction – in the jargon, a cross-undertaking.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Is our legal right to challenge the power of government under threat? Clive Anderson and guests discuss concerns that Government proposals to limit the use of judicial review could result in unlawful decisions by government and other public bodies going unchecked.”
BBC Unreliable Evidence, 25th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“This is a successful judicial review of the grant of planning permission to a proposed new golf club in leafy Surrey – where one central issue was whether, in planning policy terms, there was a ‘need’ for the club. The local planning officers had advised the council against the proposal, but the members voted in favour of it (just), hence this challenge. It succeeded on grounds including perversity, which is pretty rare, especially in the planning context, but, when one looks at the judgment, you can readily see why the judge concluded as he did. ”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“To observe that substantive judicial review—and the notions of proportionality and deference in particular—constitute well-trodden ground would be to engage in reckless understatement. And that, in turn, might suggest that there is nothing more that can usefully be said about these matters. Yet the debate in this area of public law remains vibrant—and for good reason. Like the controversy about the foundations of judicial review in which many public lawyers engaged energetically over a decade ago, the controversy about substantive review is ultimately a manifestation of underlying disagreements concerning the nature, status and interaction of fundamental constitutional principles, including the rule of law, the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is hardly surprising, then, that questions about the intensity of review and (what amounts to the reverse side of the same coin) deference remain under active discussion long after the debate was ignited by the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 17th September 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Welcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular breakfast cereal variety box of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can find previous roundups here. Post by Sarina Kidd, edited and links compiled by Adam Wagner.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th September 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“There is much current debate over judicial review, prompted in large part by successive government consultation papers. This note provides an overview of recent developments concerning immigration judicial reviews, which have, for many years, provided the bulk of all judicial review claims.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 12th September 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2025