Judicial Review: Getting the case in court

Question 1

What is the requirement for standing?

Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3)

Answer 1

You must have sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.

Question 2

What is the time limit for bringing a judicial review action?

Answer 2

3 months from the date the actionable situation occurred.

Question 3

Who can you bring a judicial review action against?

Answer 3

A public agency (incl. non-governmental agency carrying out a public function).

Question 4

Examples of public agencies

Answer 4

Government departments
Local Authorities
Regulators - like Ofgem
Non-government: Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, Advertising Standards Agency

Question 5

R v Football Association Ltd ex parte Football League [1993]

Answer 5

Football association not a public body so can’t bring judicial review action.
Test: if the FA wasn’t there would the government step in and create a body? In this case, no.

Question 6

ex parte Datafin [1987]

Answer 6

What constitutes a public body? In this case, a takeover and merger panel.
The critical factors are public element and the exclusion of purely consensual bodies (entirely by contract).

Question 7

Advantages of Judicial Review

Answer 7

Remedies ordered are binding e.g. a requirement to undertake the decision again
Specialised expertise of judges in balancing merits of each case

Question 8

Disadvantages of Judicial Review

Answer 8

Even if ordered to retake decision doesn’t mean different outcome necessarily
Very costly process
Time limit of 3 months to bring action
Have to get permission of court to bring case
Limited to examining whether the decision was LEGAL (not merit-based nor does it examine general incompetence)

Question 9

Limits in the legislation preventing bringing judicial review?

Answer 9

Check - e.g. total ouster clause like in Anisminic.

Question 10

Mickey Mouse case - standing

Answer 10

Principle: standing has to be judged in context of factual and legal.

More liberal approach to standing - majority: no sufficient interest. Fleet street casual workers, no investigation if practice of tax evasion stopped.
Tried to bring claim saying approach unfair but no interest above and beyond taxpayer.

Question 11

World Development Movement case - standing

Answer 11

pressure group concerned with misuse of aid money
acting in interests of potential recipients of aid overseas
Court held that standing to be taken in factual and legal context.