header-logo header-logo

23 February 2022
Issue: 7968 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Lords on 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

In its report on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill it highlighted ‘some academic disagreement’ as to whether judges were being given discretionary powers or if the orders were mandatory. The committee reported that it has ‘recommended removing the requirement for judges to make suspended or prospective-only quashing orders where they would provide adequate redress and there would not be a good reason not to’.

It also recommended that courts be required to give due consideration to Art 13, ECHR when making the determination. Committee Stage began this week in the House of Lords.

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