Judicial review

Peers should consider whether the introduction of suspended or prospective-only quashing orders in judicial reviews correctly balance ‘providing courts with discretion and placing a presumption on how they should act’, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said

John Cleverly & Azeem Suterwalla consider the potentially far-reaching & unexpected effects of proposals in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill may be described in some quarters as ‘relatively uncontroversial’―but it has ‘potentially far-reaching effects’. Writing in this week’s NLJ, John Cleverly, senior associate at Osborne Clarke and Azeem Suterwalla, barrister at Monckton Chambers, explore the unexpected effects of the Bill, which endured a bumpy ride at second reading in the House of Lords this week and is now on its way to scrutiny at committee stage

Peers have raised objections to government plans for prospective-only quashing orders and the removal of Cart appeals, during the second reading of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Matthew Smith gets under the skin of the government’s concerns about judicial overreach

Judicial review has found itself in the government’s crosshairs on several occasions in the past decade, Matthew Smith, partner, DBD Pitmans, writes in this week’s NLJ. Focusing on the latest attempts to reform judicial review, he points out a troubling presumption in the proposed bill, which he thinks would be better removed

Nicholas Dobson examines expert opinion evidence in judicial review proceedings

While political sleaze hit the headlines this week, lawyers have been fighting to preserve accountability of public bodies on a separate front

Michael Zander QC on whether the Judicial Review and Courts Bill is a cause for concern

David Greene reviews government attempts to reset the balance of power & right some judicial ‘wrongs’