13. The Judicial Review Procedure

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Jason Varuhas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the judicial review procedure, with particular emphasis on two issues: first, what judicial review procedure which claimants seeking a prerogative remedy are required to use; second, the extent to which a claimant seeking to raise a public law matter may avoid having to use the judicial review procedure by issuing a claim for an injunction or declaration. After providing a background on the origins of today's judicial review procedure, the chapter discusses the nature of the judicial review procedure and the impact of human rights claims on judicial review procedure. It also considers when the judicial review procedure must be used, focusing on procedural exclusivity, waiver of exclusivity, defensive use of public law arguments, and the connection between private law rights and public law.

The Impact of Public Law Norms on Private Law Relationships

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-155
Author(s):  
Justin Friedrich Krahé
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Impact

This article examines the doctrinal foundation and potential for harmonisation of horizontal effect in German and English law against the common legal background of the echr and eu law. It compares direct horizontal effect with two models of indirect horizontal effect, based either on objective constitutional values (indirect Model A), or subjective public law rights (indirect Model B). It is contended that indirect horizontal effect based on subjective public law rights, particularly those corresponding to the state’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, provides a coherent and predictable solution to most problems arising in horizontal effect cases.

Hunting the Chimera–the end of O'Reilly v Mackman?

Legal Studies ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Alder
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Review Procedure

The rule in O’Reilly u Mackman is well known. As a result of Lord Diplock’s speech in that case, the scope of the application for judicial review procedure under s 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and RSC Ord 53, has been dominated by attempts to distinguish between public and private law. According to Lord Diplock, public law cases must normally be pursued under the special Ord 53 procedure whereas private law cases even though involving substantive principles of judicial review must be pursued in ordinary courts. There are also hybrid cases - chimeras which combine features both of public and private law. In such cases the challenger is apparently free to proceed either under Ord 53 or by way or ordinary action or defence. These hybrids are not easy to reconcile with the purposes and policies behind the O’Reilly rule.

The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Regulatory Aspects ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Soft law is a pervasive phenomenon which is highly effective as a means of regulation in Australia, as it is in many other jurisdictions. This article will not focus on the regulatory aspects of soft law, but will examine the capacity of individuals to obtain remedies where public authorities fail to adhere to the terms of their published soft law. The available judicial remedies apply in very limited circumstances, both in private law actions (in tort or equity) and public law (judicial review) actions. Ultimately, the most effective ways to remedy breaches of soft law appear also to be ‘soft’, such as recommendations of the Ombudsman and discretionary schemes for ex gratia payments.

The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Advocacy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabinder Singh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Impact

This chapter reflects on the impact of the Human Rights Act (HRA) in its first 10 years on litigation and, in particular, on advocacy. It suggests that the impact has been important but not revolutionary: the HRA has fitted into the existing legal landscape and has not required radical changes to the rules on procedure and evidence. It examines four areas in which its impact can be felt: the nature of the evidence required in human rights cases; disclosure and candour in judicial review proceedings; the increased need for cross-examination of witnesses; and the role of third-party interveners because human rights cases tend to raise issues of importance to the wider public. Finally, it examines the increasing importance of international law in domestic cases, which can be attributed in part to the impact of the HRA.

13. The nature of judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-308
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Reform ◽  
Actual Decision ◽  
Public Bodies

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the jurisdiction exists to control the exercise of power by public bodies. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is outlined.

14. The Effectiveness and Impact of Judicial Review

Public Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Legal Advice ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Review Procedure ◽  
Legal Costs ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the effectiveness and impact of judicial review in terms of the accessibility of judicial review, the competence and capacity of the courts to review administrative action, and the impact of judicial review on government. Access to judicial review is constrained in various ways. Legal costs, restrictions on legal aid, uneven access to legal advice and services, the variable operation by the court of the permission to proceed requirement, and delays within the court can limit the accessibility and effectiveness of the judicial review procedure.

12. Grounds for judicial review: irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Impact

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document