Table of Contents

Procedure under Part 54 3

Beatson, Matthews and Elliott – Chapter 14 3

Permission to Proceed 4

Textbook 4

Manning, Salmon and Brown, Judicial Review Proceedings, A Practitioner’s Guide, Chapter 18 4

Beatson, Matthews and Elliott – Chapter 15 4

Statutes 6

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, ss84-88 6

Critique 7

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Report (HL 174 HC 868, 2013-2014), parts 2 and 6 7

Craig, UK, EU and Global Administrative Law: Foundations and Challenges, p 158-166 8

Standing 8

Textbook 9

Craig, Chapter 25 9

Beatson, Matthews and Elliott – Chapter 15 9

Cases 11

Summaries 11

Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1978) 11

R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed (1982) 12

R v HM Treasury ex parte Smedley (1985) 12

R v Felixstowe JJ ex parte Leigh (1987) 12

R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust (1990) 12

R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte EOC [1995] 1 AC 1 12

R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) (1994) 12

R v Secretary of State ex parte World Development Movement (1995) 13

R v Somerset CC ex parte Dixon (1997) 13

R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) 13

R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) 14

R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2009) 14

Walton v The Scottish Ministers (2012) 14

Notes 14

Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1978) (NOFL) 14

R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed (1982) 15

R v HM Treasury ex parte Smedley [1985] QB 657 17

R v Felixstowe JJ ex parte Leigh (1987) (NOFL) 18

R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust (1990) 18

Cane, “Statutes, Standing and Representation” [1990] PL 307 (Comment on Rose Theatre Trust) 19

R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte EOC (1993) 20

R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) (1994) 20

R v Secretary of State ex parte World Development Movement (1995) 21

R v Somerset CC ex parte Dixon (1997) 21

R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) (NOFL) 22

R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) (NOFL) 23

R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2009) (NOFL) 23

Walton v The Scottish Ministers (2012) 23

R. v. Social Security Secretary, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540 25

*R. v. Foreign Secretary, ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 25

Articles 25

Summaries 25

Cane, 1995 25

Loveland 25

Schiemann, 1990 25

Schiemann, 1996 26

Harlow, 2002 26

Notes 26

Cane, ‘Standing Up for the Public’ [1995] PL 276 26

Loveland 28

Schiemann, “Locus Standi”, 1990 29

Schiemann, 1996 31

Law Comm 226, p41-44; 48-51 31

Standing under the HRA 32

BEATSON, MATTHEWS AND ELLIOTT – CHAPTER 15.7.7 32

Miles, “Standing under HRA 1998” 32

Summary 32

Notes 33

Abbreviations

JRP – Judicial Review Proceedings

PLP – Private Law Proceedings (ordinary proceedings)

PLR – Private Law Right

CPR – Civil Procedure Rules

JR – Judicial Review

SCA – Senior Courts Act 1981

RoL – Rule of Law

PA – Public Authority

Procedure under Part 54

Beatson, Matthews and Elliott – Chapter 14

Origins of Judicial Review Procedure

• Part 54 requires claimants to use the judicial review procedure if a prerogative remedy (Part 54 (2)) is sought, but can choose either the judicial review procedure or ordinary procedure if only ordinary remedies (Part 54(3)) are sought.

• Procedure is designed to protect authorities against litigation that would unduly interfere with the discharge of their public functions:

  • Claimants must obtain leave of the court by applying ex parte to a Crown Office judge (Senior Courts Act 1981, s31(3); Order 53, r3(2))

  • Claimants must avoid delay and apply within three months unless there is good reason for non-compliance (Order 53, r4(1))

  • Courts often unwilling to resolve disputes of fact: reluctant to grant discovery (to allow applicants to check the accuracy of evidence relied on by minister) unless it’s false or inaccurate: R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington LBC

  • Courts reluctant to allow cross-examination to test the accuracy of evidence by affidavit: Lord Diplock, O’Reilly v Mackman

• Thus claimants often prefer ordinary procedures to judicial review, but this escape was sealed off by O’Reilly v Mackman

Nature of judicial review procedure

• Part 54, Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 2000 and retained much of the old procedure:

  • Standing requirement (s31(3) SCA 1981)

  • Avoid delay and in any event within three months (CPR 54.5(1))

• Changes:

  • Need to obtain leave remained, but a Pre-Action Protocol was introduced to require interaction between claimant and defendant before a claim is issued

• Thus, many of the conditions restricting the availability of judicial review in Order 53 remained, as did much of the court’s reluctance to permit discovery and cross-examination:

  • CPR 54.1(2)(e) says that the judicial review procedure means Part 8, and CPR 8.1(2)(a)) says that Part 8 applies to claims that are ‘unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of facts’. On this basis, Sher v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester denied permission to seek judicial review of lawfulness of claimant’s arrest because it raised ‘potentially complex disputes of fact’

  • Disclosure is possible but not required unless the court specifically orders it (CPR Practice Direction 54A, para 12.1)

  • CPR won’t encourage greater disclosure because it was designed to save court time and speed up litigation (Cornford, 2005)

• However, there is suggestion of a more liberal approach in cross-examination in human rights cases: R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital allowed cross-examination to resolve a dispute of fact (claim concerned articles 2, 3, and 8 – medical treatment against claimant’s will)

  • R (N) v M said that Wilkinson shouldn’t be regarded as for routine application in all human rights cases, but it...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Administrative Law Notes.