header-logo header-logo

21 November 2012
Issue: 7539 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Judicial review threat

Government plans to slash judicial reviews cause concern

Lawyers have expressed concerns about government proposals to cut the number of judicial reviews.

Speaking at a Confederation of British Industry (CBI) conference this week, Prime Minister David Cameron said the rise in number of “hopeless” applications was hindering economic growth.

Last year, 11,200 applications for judicial review were made, compared with just 160 in 1974. Asylum and immigration cases account for about two-thirds of all judicial reviews.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the government would publish its proposals in more detail shortly, but that they include giving applicants a shorter time after the initial decision in which to apply for judicial review, and “stopping people from using tactical delays”; halving the number of opportunities to challenge refusal of permission, from four to two; and “reforming” the fees so that they cover the cost of proceedings.

However, the Coalition for Access to Justice for the Environment (CAJE) condemned the proposals and warned they could “endanger compliance with EU law”.

It said there were “very few” challenges to “major infrastructure projects”—in 2007, only 20 applications were made in environmental matters.

Carol Day, solicitor at WWF, speaking on behalf of CAJE, says: “These proposals are hastily thought-through and seriously misguided.”

The Public Law Project, a legal charity which uses public law remedies to improve access to justice, said it was “alarmed at the apparent haste” with which the reforms were being promoted, and concerned that the consultation period seemed likely to be short and to coincide with the Christmas period.

Issue: 7539 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll