Will proposals for further judicial review reform make any difference? Charles Brasted & Ben Gaston report
The government’s latest consultation on restricting the availability of judicial review (JR) ( Judicial Review, Proposals for Further Reform, September 2013) raises further questions about the justification and efficiency of the proposals. Plans to change the rules on standing and the approach to procedural unfairness, in particular, are directed at approaches embedded in the common law jurisprudence, and raise constitutional questions as to the roles of the executive, Parliament and the judiciary in determining the availability of JR to would-be claimants.
Standing in JR
The current “sufficient interest” test for standing (Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), s 31(3)) has been the subject of an increasingly liberal and expansive interpretation. The courts have been anxious to see issues of public importance given proper judicial consideration, particularly where allegedly unlawful acts would otherwise be immune from challenge simply because there was no directly affected individual (see AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2011] UKSC 46; [2012] 1 AC 868 at 170).
At
