Judgment Reviews Law at United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, "judgment review" is primarily known as judicial review. It is a crucial mechanism within the UK's uncodified constitution that allows courts to hold public bodies and officials accountable for their actions and decisions. It is not an appeal against the merits of a decision, but rather a challenge to the lawfulness of the process by which the decision was made.
Key Principles and Features of Judicial Review
Purpose: The central purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public bodies act within the powers granted to them by Parliament and follow the correct procedures. The court does not substitute its own decision for that of the public body; instead, it "reviews" the decision-making process.
Who can be challenged: A judicial review can be brought against any public body exercising a public function. This includes:
Central government departments and ministers.
Local councils and authorities.
Police forces.
NHS trusts and other health authorities.
Regulatory bodies.
Courts and tribunals themselves (in certain circumstances).
Grounds for Judicial Review: A claimant must prove that the public body acted unlawfully on one of the following main grounds, as established in the landmark case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985):
Illegality: The public body acted outside its legal powers (ultra vires), misunderstood the law, or took into account irrelevant factors while failing to consider relevant ones.
Procedural Impropriety: The decision-making process was unfair. This can include a failure to observe natural justice, such as a lack of impartiality (bias) or a failure to give a person a fair hearing.
Irrationality / Unreasonableness: The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have made it. This is a very high threshold to meet.
Breach of the Human Rights Act 1998: The public body's decision or action was incompatible with a right protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Process: The process for judicial review is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules and typically takes place in the Administrative Court, a part of the High Court.
Permission Stage: A claimant must first apply for permission from the court to bring the judicial review. This is an initial screening stage to ensure the case is "arguable" and has a reasonable chance of success.
Time Limits: There are strict time limits for bringing a claim, which is generally "promptly and in any event not later than three months" after the grounds for the claim arose. Shorter deadlines exist for specific areas like planning and procurement.
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: Judicial review is considered a "remedy of last resort." The court will generally expect the claimant to have exhausted all other available avenues, such as an internal appeal or a complaint to an ombudsman, before seeking judicial review.
Remedies: If a judicial review is successful, the court has a range of remedies at its disposal, though it will not simply substitute its own decision. Common remedies include:
Quashing Order (formerly certiorari): This nullifies the unlawful decision, effectively treating it as if it never happened. The public body is then often required to re-make the decision lawfully.
Mandatory Order (formerly mandamus): This compels a public body to perform a public duty that it has failed to carry out.
Prohibiting Order (formerly prohibition): This prevents a public body from taking an unlawful action.
Declaration: The court issues a formal statement declaring the legal rights of the parties or the lawfulness of an action.
Injunction: The court can order a public body to do or refrain from doing a certain act.
The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 introduced some changes to the judicial review framework, particularly regarding remedies. It gives courts more flexibility to issue a "suspended quashing order" or a "prospective-only quashing order." This means the court can quash an unlawful decision, but the quashing may not take effect immediately or may not have a retrospective effect. This provides more flexibility and can prevent immediate and potentially disruptive consequences while giving the public body time to rectify the situation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments