10 August 2015
'Reform' of judicial review – The bandwagon trundles on
The Government has opened the latest in its series of consultations on proposals for the 'reform' of judicial review. The current consultation arises out of changes to judicial review procedure already introduced by Part 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA). Those changes concern the financial information that all claimants starting judicial review proceedings will have to supply to the Court. They also concern the financial information that any claimant seeking a cost capping order will have to supply to the Court and to the other parties. Unsurprisingly – this has been the leitmotif of the whole “reform” process – there is a striking lack of evidence to justify the proposals, allied to an apparent blindness to what currently happens in practice and to the powers currently available to the courts.
4 August 2015
Website hacking: Ashley Madison users left wondering who they can trust
Online businesses using third party services could potentially face claims in multiple jurisdictions if a personal data breach occurs. The recent attack on the Ashley Madison website has highlighted yet again the importance of ensuring that robust systems are in place to protect customer information.
23 July 2015
Exceptional Case Funding: safety net or fig leaf?
Last week, in the High Court case of IS v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor [2015] EWHC 1965 (Admin) (15 July 2015) (IS) Mr Justice Collins declared the current operation of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) Scheme to be unlawful and described the system as “wholly deficient”. The Public Law Project, who represented the claimant, has said the judgment will have profound implications for access to justice.
7 July 2015
Judicial review and suitable alternative remedies
It is commonplace to say judicial review is a remedy of last resort and in particular that if there is an adequate alternative remedy that is or was available to a claimant, permission to bring proceedings will normally be refused.
6 July 2015
The end of the duty of candour double standard?
When things go wrong in healthcare, should the duty of candour owed by providers to patients differ depending on whether the care was provided within a primary or secondary setting? Or whether the patient received care from the public or private sector? A single duty of candour should apply consistently across the healthcare service. Unfortunately, the duty of candour is currently triggered by two different thresholds depending upon who provides care to the patient.
