Judicial Review Flashcards
What is Judicial Review
JR is the procedure by which the High Court supervises the exercise of statutory and common law public powers and duties of the executive branch of the government
It is an important cheques and balances which helps to maintain a stable separation of powers between the different branches of government
Allows the court to review lawfulness of government decisions including those of ministers, councils, police, prosecutors, hospital trusts, statutory bodies, tribunals and the lower courts
If found to have acted unlawfully, the High Court has various remedies including to quash the decision or force the body involved to make it again in a lawful manner
There are two general limitations of the courts power on judicial review
1. judicial review is a rule of last resort
2. the court’s power is one of revision not re-hearing
C I P C A - Coats in Protective Caps Apps
Costs, Indemnity, PCO, Costs Capping in JR,, Applictaion for CC
Costs in Judicial Review - civil in nature
1. S.51 SCA 1981 & CPR 44.2 (1) - court has
2. Davey v Aylesbury DC (2007) - CPR44.2(2)(a) - not
3. Booth v Bradford Metropolitan DC (2000) -
Costs in Judicial Review - civil in nature
1. S.51 SCA 1981 & CPR 44.2 (1) - court has discretion
2. Davey v Aylesbury DC (2007) - CPR44.2(2)(a) - loser pays – no auto apply
3. Booth v Bradford Metropolitan DC (2000) - Must consider all the circs. Gen rule applies if authority acted in bad faith and unreasonably.
Indemnity Costs in Judicial Review - No set rules. On case by case basis
4. Re R (on application of CFM) v SSHD (2021) -
Indemnity Costs in Judicial Review - No set rules. On case by case basis
4. Re R (on application of CFM) v SSHD (2021) - where conduct particularly poor and breach particularly significant
Protective Costs Orders - Limits or removes applicants liability to pay opposing parties costs if applicant loses, while still being entitled to payment of costs if wins
- Corner House Research v Sec of State for Trade and Industry (2005) –
- Morgan V Hinton Organics (2009) -
Protective Costs Orders - Limits or removes applicants liability to pay opposing parties costs if applicant loses, while still being entitled to payment of costs if wins
- Corner House Research v Sec of State for Trade and Industry (2005) – PCO only in exceptional circs. Essential principles set out: -
* Issues are of General Public Importance,
* Public Interest requires those issues to be resolved,
* Applicant has no private interest - Morgan V Hinton Organics (2009) - the court encouraged a flexible approach to protective costs orders, especially to the requirement of ‘no private interest’
Costs Capping
7. S.88-90 CJ & CA 2015 –
8. S.88(2) - Definition -
9. S.88(6) - No CCO unless Court satisfied
*
*
*
10. S.88(7) - Proceedings are public interest proceedings if
*
*
*
11. S.88(8) - Factors when deciding if proceedings are public interest
*
*
*
12. S.89(1) – When making CCO, Court must consider
*
*
*
*
*
13. S.89(2) -
- R (On the application of Hannah Beefy and Ors) v Nursing Midwifery Council (2017) –
Costs Capping
7. S.88-90 CJ & CA 2015 – rules introduced on Costs Capping (replaced PPOs)
8. S.88(2) - Definition - an order limiting or removing the liability of a party to JR to pay and other party’s costs in connection with any stage of the proceedings.
9. S.88(6) - No CCO unless Court satisfied
* proceedings are public interest proceedings
* without CCO the applicant would withdraw application/cease to participate
* it would be reasonable for the applicant for JR to do so
10. S.88(7) - Proceedings are public interest proceedings if
* an issue is of general public importance
* public interest requires the issue to be resolved
* the proceedings are likely to provide an appropriate means of resolving it
11. S.88(8) - Factors when deciding if proceedings are public interest
* No. of people likely to be directly affected
* how significant the effect on those people would be
* whether proceedings involve consideration of a point of law of general public importance
12. S.89(1) – When making CCO, Court must consider
* Financial Resources of parties
* Extent to which Applicant is likely to benefit
* Extent to which any person who has provided support may benefit
* Whether legal reps for Applicant are acting free of charge
* Whether Applicant is appropriate person to represent the interests of the other persons or the public interest generally
13. S.89(2) - Order must apply to both parties i.e. cost capping order applies to both
14. R (On the application of Hannah Beefy and Ors) v Nursing Midwifery Council (2017) – Cap for each party can be different - Court capped Applicant’s liability for costs to £25k and the Defendants to £65k
Application for Costs Capping
- CPR 46.17(1) – (a) must be (b) with
- CPR 23.3(2)(b) – can be W/O Notice where
Application for Costs Capping
- CPR 46.17(1) – (a) must be on notice (b) with supporting evidence, estimate of costs and if corporate body whether it has financial resources to meet liabilities arising from proceedings
- CPR 23.3(2)(b) – can be W/O Notice where a rule or PD allows
