header-logo header-logo

11 August 2011 / Natsai Manyarara
Issue: 7478 / Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Permission to review

Natsai Manyarara examines the amenability of judicial review of the Upper Tribunal

The Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review available to unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal established by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) in its recent judgment in Cart. The debate centred upon the effect of the creation of a new and integrated tribunal structure under TCEA 2007. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the Upper Tribunal was not amenable to judicial review other than in the wholly exceptional circumstances of an outright excess of jurisdiction or a procedural irregularity which denied the right to a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach and held that the same test as for second appeals should be applied by the High Court in considering applications for permission to bring a judicial review claim against an unappealable decision of the Upper Tribunal (see R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan) (FC) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll