This is an extract of our Judicial Review document, which we sell as part of our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Judicial Review ('JR') is the practical implementation of the rule of law.
o Takes place primarily through the review of the actions of decision makers (Jowell).
o In particular ensures that decision makers do not act arbitrarily or ultra vires.
o These are residual - should you have any other remedy you should seek the other first.
o Quashing Order - sets aside public body's decision
Prohibition - requires public body to carry out its duties
Mandatory Order - prevents public body from acting beyond its powers
Declaration - set out the rights of the parties (Civil
Procedure Rules 'CPR' 54.3)
o Injunctions - prevent a public body from acting on or enforcing a decision
(Damages - where the public body has caused loss)
This is not a standalone right in JR, the Claimant must also have another cause of action
Traditionally, the different remedies were claimed from different courts
On the basis of 1976 Law Commission Report 1978 reforms allowed you to seek any mix of remedies through a single form of application for JR.
o 1974 - 160 cases in this area, by 1982 - 685 cases, 2001 - 5,
298, 2010 - 10, 500 (ish)
CPR 54.5(1)(b): JR must be brought promptly and in any case within three months. (other civil law limitation is 6 years)
This promptness requirement does not violate ECHR
A.6 (Lam v UK (2001))
R (TV NI) v ITC (1991)- bidding for operating commercial television in Northern Ireland. Company turned down. Did not immediately bring case as was waiting for resolution of case from another disappointed bidder.
Brought within three months, but court held had not acted promptly.
R (Carswell) v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal -
court may extend time limits in exceptional cases, but lack of knowledge that you are able to challenge is not a sufficient reason.
JR is not concerned with the decision itself, it is only concerned with the legality of the decision. JR cannot substitute its decision for that of the public body (R (Fewings) v Somerset CC).
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes.