7. Judicial Review Flashcards
What is judicial review?
The method by which the courts can review and scrutinise the actions of the executive
In judicial review, what are the courts generally concerned with, and not concerned with?
Concerned with: legality of a decision
Not concerned with: merits of a decision
What are the three concerns when considering judicial review?
- Have the requirements been met?
- Has a ground for judicial review been established?
- What is the appropriate remedy?
Judicial review is available only against decisions of what type of bodies?
Public bodies
What will the courts conclude when there is a contract between the parties?
That the matter is regulated by private and not public law, and so is not eligible for judicial review
Before issuing judicial review proceedings, what should a claimant do and how long does the defendant have to respond?
- Send a letter identifying the issues in dispute,
- to which the defendant should respond within 14 days
What are the two stages of judicial review?
- Permission stage
- Full hearing
What will generally influence the court to exercise their discretion to refuse permission for judicial review?
Even if claimant is successful, their outcome will not be substantially different 🤦
When must judicial review proceedings be brought, and what is the absolute time limit for (1) general claims and (2) planning decisions?
Promptly, no later than
- six weeks for planning decisions🏡
-three months for all other matters
🌏
Can the court refuse permission even within the three-month window, if they don’t believe the claimant acted promptly?
Yes
What does the principle of procedural exclusivity provide?
That public law issues must be resolved via judicial review rather than through ordinary private law procedures
What is the exception to the procedural exclusivity rule?
Cases concerning a mix of public and private law can be resolved in private law
What must be true of a situation or dispute before judicial review is available?
It must be a live dispute/situation, and not be hypothetical
Can judicial review be used to resolve disputes of facts?
No
To show that they have standing, what must a claimant show, and at what stage is this assessed (unless the position is not obvious)?
Claimant must show they have a
- sufficient interest in the issues 🧐
- assessed at the permission stage, or the full hearing stage if the position is not obvious
What is the more recent departure from the general position that a group of people lacking standing do not acquire standing by forming a group?
A group can be deemed to have a sufficient interest if:
- The group is responsible, well-resourced, has affected member, has expertise, 😇💰🤓
and/or
- There is unlikely to be an alternative claimant 🤷♀️
and/or
- there’s an importance in vindicating the rule of law
Is the test for standing for judicial review more strict or lenient than the test for standing under the Human Rights Act?
It is more lenient for judicial review where all that is required is a sufficient interest. A claimant must be a victim to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act.
🧐
What must a claimant do before bringing judicial review proceedings?
Exhaust all other avenues first
😮💨