Consultation outcome

Judicial Review: Proposals For Further Reform

From:
Ministry of Justice
Published
6 September 2013
This was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government
This consultation has concluded

Detail of outcome

View the response to the consultation.

Original consultation

Summary

The Government is inviting views on potential measures for the further reform of judicial review. The measures aim to tackle the burden that the growth in unmeritorious judicial reviews has placed on stretched public services whilst protecting access to justice and the rule of law.

This consultation was held on another website.

This consultation ran from
to

Consultation description

The consultation exercise seeks views on proposals in a number of key areas:

  • how the courts deal with minor procedural defects that would have made no difference to the final decision;
  • a number of measures to rebalance the system of financial incentives so that those involved have a proportionate interest in the costs of the case. This includes an amended proposal on payment of legal aid providers in judicial review cases, previously included in the Transforming Legal Aid consultation which closed in June.
  • speeding up appeals to the Supreme Court in important cases.
  • a new specialist “planning chamber” for challenges relating to major developments to be taken only by expert judges using streamlined processes. This builds on the “planning fast-track” process implemented in July 2013;

The consultation exercise also explores the potential for reform in these areas:

  • the potential to reform the test for standing (who is able to bring a judicial review);
  • local authorities’ abilities to challenge nationally significant infrastructure projects; whether it is appropriate to provide legal aid for certain statutory challenges under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • the use of JR to resolve disputes relating to the public sector equality duty and whether there are suitable alternatives.
Published 6 September 2013