header-logo header-logo

Concerns over judicial review curbs

02 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Immigration lawyers express dismay at government’s proposals

The government is to implement the majority of its controversial proposals on judicial review—prompting widespread concern among immigration lawyers.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said last week the changes would stop judicial review being used as “a cheap delaying tactic”. His department singled out immigration-related applications for criticism—8,734 out of 11,359 judicial review applications in 2011 were to overturn an immigration decision, but only 607 were considered suitable for a hearing and 31 ultimately successful.

The changes include withdrawing the right to a hearing in person if a written application is declared “totally without merit”.

Applicants whose written application is turned down will have to pay a £215 court fee.

The time limit for applying for a judicial review will be halved from three months to six weeks for challenges to planning decisions, and reduced from three months to four weeks for challenges to procurement decisions.

However, the government has dropped two of its proposals: scrapping oral renewals for cases which have already had a hearing on substantially the same matter; and clarifying when the time limit starts for cases where there is a continuing issue or multiple decisions.

Sarah Daley, barrister at Garden Court North chambers, said: “I certainly don’t agree that it is a ‘cheap delaying tactic’.

“The real problem, that they haven’t dealt with or don’t want to deal with, is the really poor quality of decision making in the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Home Office, and the UKBA’s unwillingness to engage with you at an early stage. You must write a letter before action before applying for judicial review so they have an opportunity to engage with you long before you go to court, but they don’t.

“‘Totally without merit’ is a very worrying development. It is entirely new. The civil courts do have this but it is mainly used for vexatious litigants. There is a definite possibility that there could be a bad decision. Judges make mistakes. They are not infallible.”

Garden Court North is organising a meeting next week for concerned immigration practitioners in the north to discuss the proposals. Call 0161 236 1840 for further details.

Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll