0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

House of Lords rejects judicial review reform

29 October 2014

The House of Lords has rejected the Government’s plan to change the criteria for bringing judicial reviews.

Before a judicial review can be brought, an applicant must first seek the court’s permission. As originally drafted, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill would have required courts to refuse permission if it seems “highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.” However, the House of Lords has passed an amendment preserving the court’s full discretion in this area.

The number of judicial reviews has risen from around 4,300 in 2000 to nearly 15,700 in 2013 and the Government is clearly concerned about the costs to public bodies of defending these claims. However, it is questionable whether limiting the powers of the courts to decide which claims they wish to hear would be an appropriate or effective way of addressing these concerns.

related opinions

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

SFO fail to secure individual criminal convictions following Deferred Prosecution Agreement

On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up