Blog
R(Gallaher) v Competition and Markets Authority and the Search for the Principle of Equal Treatment
Fred Allen
Attempts to narrow the scope of judicial review have long been on the Conservative Party’s political agenda. Following the Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘IRAL’) and the subsequent government consultation on reform of judicial review, the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill (‘the Bill’) to the House of Commons on 21 July 2021. The Bill is making its way through Parliament and is currently at the committee stage.
As we highlighted in our earlier blog following the Bill’s announcement, the proposed reforms are, at first sight, milder than had been feared. Nevertheless, the Bill proposes to make significant amendments to the remedies available in judicial review proceedings and to also limit the court’s jurisdiction.
The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.
Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.
The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38
Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.
We are known for our notable strengths in judicial review litigation and our incisive and pragmatic advice.
Our 'exceptional' team has over 25 years' experience, acting in the most significant public law cases.
The team is consistently recognised for its public inquiry expertise, with over 25 years experience in all the major inquiries.
Our team has an established record of representing families, organisations, other interested persons and witnesses at inquests.
Our team has extensive experience acting for central government, businesses & senior police officers on their information rights.
We have expertise in administrative and public law, together with our real enthusiasm for the work we do.
Our team is experienced in representing senior professionals, public figures and major corporations before Parliamentary Select Committees.
Consumers and regulators increasingly expect companies to demonstrate a commitment to human rights, where companies fall short, they increasingly face both reputational and legal consequences.
Fred Allen
Emily Carter
Legal Notices
|
Privacy Notice
|
Fraud Warning
|
Modern Slavery Statement
|
Complaints
|
Website Terms
|
Cookie Policy
|
Accessibility
|
Site Map
© Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility