Judicial reviews: some hits but one big miss

Those of us who regularly handle judicial review cases will all too well the sense of doom that these new changes bring with them. After all, it was less than a year ago that Grayling announced his first series of measures to cut down the number of judicial reviews being lodged, which included greatly increased court fees and tighter time limits for lodging applications./p>

This time publicly funded clients (and their legal teams) will take a battering as among this new wave of measures is the decision to limit legal aid to cases granted permission by the court – although the Legal Aid Agency will have discretion to pay for ‘meritorious’ cases that fail to cross this hurdle.

This might as well be termed
a ‘no win, no fee’ ultimatum, with the probable outcome
being that all but a tiny handful of such cases will be undertaken by solicitors.

But some of Grayling’s new proposals aren’t entirely without merit themselves. I am very much in favour of weeding out spurious planning challenges by the Nimby sector.

Proposals to fast-track planning disputes through new specialist courts should do just that. Judicial reviews should be the bedrock and preserve of citizens who are imperiled by the decisions of the
bureaucratic establishment, not tools by which anyone can protest again issues they are barely affected by.

I am also all in favour of busybody interveners paying their own costs. For too long now, campaigning groups have used public money to further their own political ends, leaving the applicant watching helplessly as their costs rise
to often stratospheric levels as
a direct result of the issues
that are all too often unnecessarily raised.

I also see no reason in terms of transparency why funding from third parties should not be disclosed, with the consequences that follow in terms of the court’s power to slap an order for costs on such none-party. Again, this should help prevent the abuse of the judicial review system by politically motivated third parties and prevent them from, in effect, setting the legislation agenda.

So some hits, one big miss, and a continued focus on streamlining our courts while striking that delicate balance between access to justice and
the prevention of the abuse of the courts by politically minded legal strategists. SJ

David Kirwan is managing partner of Kirwans

www.kirwanssolicitors.co.uk

Copyright & permissions