Procedures of JR

Question 1

Pt 54.4, CPR

Answer 1

Litigants must secure the permission of the court to launch a JR challenge.

Question 2

Sharma v Brown-Antoine

Answer 2

The test under Pt.54.4 of the CPR is whether there is an arguable ground for JR with a realistic prospect of success

Question 3

Cowl

Answer 3

JR is a remedy of last resort

Question 4

Preston

Answer 4

Cs must utilize alternative means of dispute resolution and exhaust alternative remedies

Question 5

Leech

Answer 5

The requirement in Cowl may be waived if the alternate remedy would be inadequate

Question 6

Calveley

Answer 6

The requirement in Cowl may be waived if it would require C to wait an unreasonable time for justice

Question 7

Pt 54.5

Answer 7

A JR claim must be brought within three months from the date the relevant decision was made and it must be brought promptly

Question 8

Cromer Ring Mill

Answer 8

An extension of time may be granted for a good reason (e.g. where C’s JR claim is delayed because he was exhausting other remedies)

Question 9

O’Reilly

Answer 9

Public law matters (where the grounds of litigation constitute grounds of JR) must be litigated by means of the JR procedure; using ordinary proceedings to evade the procedural restrictions on JR would be an abuse of process

Question 10

Fleet Street Casuals (2 precedents)

Answer 10

1. If C is less personally affected by the issue, his standing will be subject to greater scrutiny and he will have to compensate by persuading the court the matter is so important it should nevertheless be litigated
2. Standing is to be determined with reference to the legal and factual context of the case and NOT as a preliminary matter distinct from the substance of the case. (Lord Wilberforce)

Question 11

Ex p Greenpeace

Answer 11

suggests that JR may be sought by a campaigning organization seeking to represent the interests of others if its relevant credentials are strong

Question 12

Pergau Dam

Answer 12

standing may be generated on pure public interest grounds if the allegations are serious, C’s case is strong, there is no alternative challenger with better standing and C has expert credentials and is well-informed

Question 13

Rose Theatre Trust

Answer 13

Suggests that courts will be less likely to acknowledge standing of an organisation formed ad hoc with a specific view to challenging the decision.