header-logo header-logo

20 January 2021
Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

LNB news: House of Lords provides update on examination of judicial review

The House of Lords Library has updated its briefing examining judicial review

Lexis®Library update: The briefing covers the government's plan for judicial review, recent case law and why the review will be beneficial for the government. The government launched the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) in July 2020, which will determine whether the judicial review process requires reforming. The IRAL held a call for evidence from 7 September 2020 to 26 October 2020 and in December 2020, the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, stated that once the IRAL is complete, the government will emerge with its proposals in spring 2021.

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 19 January 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.com

Source: hhttps://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/judicial-review-time-for-change/

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll