header-logo header-logo

05 February 2009 / Julia Marlow , Charles Brasted
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Features , Damages
printer mail-detail

Light relief?

Charles Brasted & Julia Marlow review the latest proposals to introduce a damages remedy in judicial review

It is a fundamental principle of judicial review that it does not of itself provide any basis for the award of damages. Damages may only be awarded in judicial review proceedings on the basis of a parallel cause of action in respect of which damages would be an available remedy (such as under the Human Rights Act or EU law). The entitlement to seek damages in such cases is merely a procedural measure intended to obviate the need for a claimant to institute duplicate proceedings.

This position has historically been justified mainly on the ground that the supervisory jurisdiction of the court exists for the benefit of the public at large and not merely to benefit individual claimants—hence it is that all judicial review proceedings are still formally brought in the name of the Queen. In addition, to award damages to an individual would entail substituting the decision of the court for that of the public authority, something that the court is rarely prepared to do, not

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll