The right to equality in fertility treatment
– Chambers UK, 2022
Clients say they have “learnt to trust [Nick] in the most delicate of matters, and place great weight on [his] advice”. They have praised his “care, and expertise beyond expectations” and called him “extremely attentive and ‘on the ball’… and just easy to work with”.
Nick is regularly instructed on judicial review claims (particularly in commercial and regulatory contexts). He has worked with claimants, defendants, interested parties and interveners. Nick has also acted for key participants, and worked with important witnesses, in large scale inquests and public inquiries.
Beyond the courts, Nick helps public sector clients to understand their duties, make key decisions and manage their litigation risks. He is an experienced adviser regarding the interpretation of legislation and regulations, freedom of information requests and the public law aspects of criminal and regulatory investigations and proceedings. Finally, Nick has acted for and against regulators in a range of investigations and proceedings
He has a lot of practical and industry experience which is very helpful for clients."
Chambers UK, 2022
It has been a pleasure to work with you on this matter. I am very pleased with the witness statement which conveys everything I can offer to help the Inquiry…Your advice on the way in which the witness statement is worded, also importantly, reflects my sincere intention to do all that I can to support the Inquiry’s aims and objectives…you are a huge asset to KN.”
He has provided intellectual firepower in going through our witness statements with a fine-tooth comb to ensure clarity."
Chambers UK, 2021
The excellent advice and hard work of the Kingsley Napley team materially contributed to the resounding success of this case. We simply could not have mastered the voluminous material without your assistance.”
A public body
Whilst Nick’s professional knowledge is significant, it was his personable style alongside his attentiveness, diligence and sheer professionalism that meant I always had so much confidence in his legal representation.”
A senior individual
We are so grateful to you for all of your extremely hard work and tireless support over a very intense period. I have no doubt all of that preparation and professionalism stood us in very good stead…”
A public body
“…the [client] continues to be enormously appreciative of the attention to detail and care with which you and Adam have been advising and representing the community.” “Client care has been exceptional.”
A representative organisation
I hoped you all were left in no doubt of my huge personal gratitude for all that you have done to steer us safely to this point…We would not be where we are – and I would not have been able to weather these storms in the way I am doing - were it not for all of the team’s care and expertise.”
Nick trained and later became a senior associate in the public law practice at a global law firm. He joined the public law team at Kingsley Napley in 2017 and was promoted to partner in 2021. Nick is a Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts Civil Proceedings).
Kingsley Napley are hugely lucky to have someone of your calibre – not just your intellect and incisive legal analysis but your exceptionally thoughtful and empathetic approach. It’s not often one finds lawyers with both sets of attributes!”
A large organisation
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  UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  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.
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’). The panel of lawyers and academics, chaired by former Minister of State for Civil Justice Lord Edward Faulks QC (‘the Panel’), has been tasked with examining the potential need for reform of Judicial Review and to ‘consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.’
The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.
In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.
Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.
Even if it is generally more straightforward for the claimant to be a legal person, this judgment may give confidence to the likes of amateur sports clubs and campaigning pressure groups considering challenging the exercise of public power.
Friday 13 December 2019 will be remembered as the day the Conservatives won their biggest majority since the 1980s and finally obtained the dominance required to complete the Article 50 process and take the UK out of the EU.
Everyone has an opinion on yesterday’s decision of the UK Supreme Court. Boris Johnson said on television that he profoundly disagreed with it. Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly called it a ‘constitutional coup’ on a cabinet conference call. Former Lord Chancellor Michael Gove was distinctly equivocal about it when interviewed on the Today programme. Laura Kuenssberg reported on Twitter that a No 10 source said ‘the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach into these political matters’. The fact these people all claim they will still ‘respect’ the decision does not detract from the corrosiveness of their sentiments.
The prorogation judicial reviews concerned the constitutional equilibrium between government, parliament and the courts. Today, an 11 member UK Supreme Court panel affirmed its centuries-old supervisory jurisdiction over acts of government and ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s government failed to advance any reasonable justification for proroguing parliament. The prorogation was therefore unlawful and ‘never happened’ so parliament is back in the game.
Scotland’s highest court and a senior divisional court of the High Court in England and Wales have reached opposite conclusions about whether the recent decision to prorogue parliament was lawful.
Monday night’s marathon session in Parliament saw a number of issues debated into the small hours and further defeats for the government. While many raised important political and legal issues, one of particular interest to information lawyers, followers of Parliamentary procedure and journalists alike was the endorsement of a “Humble Address” motion brought by former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.
On 24 July 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v Mayor Of London  EWHC 1997 (Admin). This case related to the decision in December 2018 by the Mayor of London to remove an exemption and require private hire vehicles (“PHV”) to pay the Congestion Charge from 8 April 2019
According to the most recent data, two million people in London are living with illegal levels of air pollution. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the main pollutants and road transport is estimated to be responsible for 50% of total emissions.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility