Source: https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-contract-law/samples/duress-12ecba7f-09d8-444d-9b54-fe7ff03a2f17
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 05:04:02
Document Index: 470959507

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 54', 'arts 2', 'ART 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54', 'art 54']

A more recent version of these Standing notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
Procedure under Part 54...................................................................................... 3
Beatson, Matthews and Elliott - Chapter 14............................................................................3
Permission to Proceed.......................................................................................... 4
Textbook...................................................................................................................................... 4
Manning, Salmon and Brown, Judicial Review Proceedings, A Practitioner's Guide, Chapter
18.............................................................................................................................................. 4
Beatson, Matthews and Elliott - Chapter 15............................................................................4
Statutes....................................................................................................................................... 6
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, ss84-88........................................................................6
Critique........................................................................................................................................ 7
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Report (HL 174 HC 868, 2013-2014), parts 2 and 6................................................................................................................................................. 7
Craig, UK, EU and Global Administrative Law: Foundations and Challenges, p 158-166................8
Standing............................................................................................................... 8
Textbook...................................................................................................................................... 9
Craig, Chapter 25..................................................................................................................... 9
Beatson, Matthews and Elliott - Chapter 15............................................................................9
Cases......................................................................................................................................... 11
Summaries.............................................................................................................................. 11
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1978)..............................................................................11
R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed (1982).....................................................12
R v HM Treasury ex parte Smedley (1985)....................................................................................12
R v Felixstowe JJ ex parte Leigh (1987)..........................................................................................12
R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust (1990)...........................12
R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte EOC [1995] 1 AC 1...........................................12
R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) (1994)..................................................12
R v Secretary of State ex parte World Development Movement (1995).........................................13
R v Somerset CC ex parte Dixon (1997)......................................................................................... 13
R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001).................................................13
R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003)..................14
R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2009)............................14
Walton v The Scottish Ministers (2012).........................................................................................14
Notes....................................................................................................................................... 14
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1978) (NOFL).................................................................14
R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed (1982).....................................................15
R v HM Treasury ex parte Smedley [1985] QB 657........................................................................17
R v Felixstowe JJ ex parte Leigh (1987) (NOFL).............................................................................18
R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust (1990)...........................18
Cane, "Statutes, Standing and Representation" [1990] PL 307 (Comment on Rose Theatre Trust)
R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte EOC (1993).........................................................20
R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) (1994)..................................................20
R v Secretary of State ex parte World Development Movement (1995).........................................21
R v Somerset CC ex parte Dixon (1997)......................................................................................... 21
R (Bulger) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) (NOFL)....................................22
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: STANDING
Page 1 R (Feakins) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2003) (NOFL).....23
R (Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2009) (NOFL)...............23
Walton v The Scottish Ministers (2012).........................................................................................23
R. v. Social Security Secretary, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540................25
*R. v. Foreign Secretary, ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552.......................................................25
Articles....................................................................................................................................... 25
Summaries.............................................................................................................................. 25
Cane, 1995...................................................................................................................................... 25
Loveland......................................................................................................................................... 25
Schiemann, 1990............................................................................................................................ 25
Schiemann, 1996............................................................................................................................ 26
Harlow, 2002.................................................................................................................................. 26
Notes....................................................................................................................................... 26
Cane, 'Standing Up for the Public' [1995] PL 276..................................................................26
Loveland......................................................................................................................................... 28
Schiemann, "Locus Standi", 1990.................................................................................................. 29
Schiemann, 1996.................................................................................................................... 31
Law Comm 226, p41-44; 48-51............................................................................................... 31
Standing under the HRA........................................................................................................... 32
BEATSON, MATTHEWS AND ELLIOTT - CHAPTER 15.7.7...........................................................32
Miles, "Standing under HRA 1998"................................................................................................ 32
Summary..................................................................................................................................... 32
Notes........................................................................................................................................... 33
Page 2 ABBREVIATIONS
JRP - Judicial Review Proceedings
PLP - Private Law Proceedings (ordinary proceedings)
PLR - Private Law Right
SCA - Senior Courts Act 1981
PROCEDURE UNDER PART 54
BEATSON, MATTHEWS AND ELLIOTT - CHAPTER 14
Origins of Judicial Review Procedure-Part 54 requires claimants to use the judicial review procedure if a prerogative remedy
(Part 54 (2)) is sought, but can choose either the judicial review procedure or ordinary procedure if only ordinary remedies (Part 54(3)) are sought.
Procedure is designed to protect authorities against litigation that would unduly interfere with the discharge of their public functions:
o Claimants must obtain leave of the court by applying ex parte to a Crown Office judge (Senior Courts Act 1981, s31(3); Order 53, r3(2))
o Claimants must avoid delay and apply within three months unless there is good reason for non-compliance (Order 53, r4(1))
o Courts often unwilling to resolve disputes of fact: reluctant to grant discovery (to allow applicants to check the accuracy of evidence relied on by minister) unless it's false or inaccurate: R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Islington
o Courts reluctant to allow cross-examination to test the accuracy of evidence by affidavit: Lord Diplock, O'Reilly v Mackman
Thus claimants often prefer ordinary procedures to judicial review, but this escape was sealed off by O'Reilly v Mackman
Nature of judicial review procedure-
Part 54, Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 2000 and retained much of the old procedure:
o Standing requirement (s31(3) SCA 1981)
o Avoid delay and in any event within three months (CPR 54.5(1))
o Need to obtain leave remained, but a Pre-Action Protocol was introduced to require interaction between claimant and defendant before a claim is issued
Page 3 --
Thus, many of the conditions restricting the availability of judicial review in Order 53 remained, as did much of the court's reluctance to permit discovery and crossexamination:
o CPR 54.1(2)(e) says that the judicial review procedure means Part 8, and CPR
8.1(2)(a)) says that Part 8 applies to claims that are 'unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of facts'. On this basis, Sher v Chief Constable of Greater
Manchester denied permission to seek judicial review of lawfulness of claimant's arrest because it raised 'potentially complex disputes of fact'
o Disclosure is possible but not required unless the court specifically orders it (CPR
Practice Direction 54A, para 12.1)
o CPR won't encourage greater disclosure because it was designed to save court time and speed up litigation (Cornford, 2005)
However, there is suggestion of a more liberal approach in cross-examination in human rights cases: R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital allowed cross-examination to resolve a dispute of fact (claim concerned articles 2, 3, and 8 - medical treatment against claimant's will)
o R (N) v M said that Wilkinson shouldn't be regarded as for routine application in all human rights cases, but it has been used subsequently, eg. Al-Sweady
Conclusion: apart from alterations to permission stage and greater willingness to order disclosure and cross-examination in human rights cases, judicial review procedure has stayed much the same as Order 53
MANNING, SALMON AND BROWN, JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS, A
PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE, CHAPTER 18--
JR requires permission of High Court, governed by Part 54, part 54 Practice Directions and SCA s31
Permission is required whether or not JR is taken under Part 54 (CPR r54.4)
Part 54 must be used where C is seeking a quashing order, mandatory order, prohibiting order or injunction under SCA s30; where only a declaration or injunction is sought, Part 54 is optional. If only damages are sought, Part 54 cannot be used.
Strict time limits must be observed unless there is good reason, which might be:
o Caused by obtaining legal aid
Where A tried to obtain a remedy by other means
Communications with proposed D
o Lack of knowledge of a reviewable decision
Though the most important consideration in each case would be the overall reasonableness of delay
Test for permission:
o Court must be satisfied that there is an arguable case for review, and C has sufficient interest in the subject matter of claim (standing)
o Non-criminal applications - A may appeal to CoA, which may grant leave to appeal to SC (Burkett)
Criminal applications - No right of appeal to CoA
BEATSON, MATTHEWS AND ELLIOTT - CHAPTER 15-The Pre-Action Protocol
Is before the JRP proper has begun; adherence isn't obligatory but courts will normally expect compliance and can take non-compliance into account when giving directions in proceedings or making orders for costs (para 7)
o Codifies good practice: Cs must send a letter before claim to D outlining grounds of compliant, D must reply within 14 days with letter of response.
o Encourages interaction between parties before matter reaches court - thereby promoting recourse to alternative dispute resolution (negotiation/mediation)
C must secure permission (leave) by CPR 54.4 if he wants to litigate, before proceeding onto substantive hearing
Purpose of permission stage:
-Helpful to PAs: Act as a filter to ensure that only serious issues go to substantive hearing (prevents unnecessary distraction for public bodies by the prospect of litigation)
-Helpful to courts: Allows for efficient management of caseload, saving judicial resources by rejecting cases with little prospect of success
-Helpful to Cs: provides quick and inexpensive mechanism to obtain the opinion of Admin Court
Criticisms of the permission stage:
-Wrong in principle because it involves treating PAs more favorably than other litigants (Wade and Forsyth)
-Little empirical evidence that it is practically effective (Bridges, Meszaros,
Sunkin)
-Difficult to apply consistent principles
Reform of the permission stage
CPR Part 54 made significant changes, influenced by Bowman's proposals concerned with the increasing workload of the Admin Court (and delays caused)
-Courts will normally consider permission without a hearing (Part 54A 8.4)
-Efficient use of judicial resources
-Permission stage changed from ex parte procedure (involving only C) to inter partes procedure (involving both C and D) by requiring C to fill in a claim form including a question for the court, and D has an opportunity to respond.
-Reinforces the Pre-Action Protocol's encouragement of alternative dispute resolution
-Prevents post-permission settlement (using permission as a bargaining chip to settle)
o Effectiveness of changes:
-62% judicial review threats resolved by dialogue between parties (Bondy and Sunkin, 2009)
Page 5 They say this underlines the importance of the letter before claim
(outlining the seriousness of C's position and encouraging the authority to reconsider its position)
-Of those that get to proceedings, 34% are resolved before permission stage
(compared to around 13-20% before the reforms)
-They conclude therefore that the reforms have been successful in encouraging early settlement
-56% settled after permission (around the same number as before reforms)
-Suggests that settlement activity as a whole has increased
Operation of permission stage
Specific grounds of refusal:
-C's absence of recourse to alternative remedies before resorting to JRP
-Failure to comply with time limits
-Lack of standing
-Whether the case is arguable: if on a "quick perusal" of the materials then available the court thinks that on further consideration it will prove to be an arguable case leave should be granted (Lord Dioplock, R v IRC ex parte
National Federation of Self-Employed)
-NOTE: Vast majority of the permissions refused on this ground, not on the time limits/absence of alternative remedies/failure to comply with time limits/lack of standing... So the 2015 Act could have changed this by forcing courts to refuse permission to people who have an arguable case, but the case isn't worth arguing.
o Thus conceived the permission stage rarely proved insuperable, but later on saw a dramatic fall in the success rate (71% in 1981 to 22% in 2006)
o Potential reasons:
-Since 1990s courts began applying a much more rigorous test than Lord
Diplock's - the modern approach is: court will refuse leave unless satisfied that there is an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success and not subject to a discretionary bar (delay, alternative remedy): Lord Bingham and
Walker, Sharma v Brown-Antoine
-Effect of the Bowman reforms (paper decisions have always been less likely to lead to permission
-Rising settlement is linked to lowering of permission rates (Bondy and
o Concern: inconsistency in the way different judges make decisions at the permission stage
-If permission is refused without hearing, CPR 54.12(3) allows Cs to request reconsideration at a hearing
-If permission again refused, C can seek permission from CoA (CPR 52.15(1))
which can give permission to judicial review (CPR 52.15(3))
-Then the case goes to the High Court unless CoA orders otherwise (CPR
52.15(4))-
The grounds of refusalExhaustion of alternative remedies:
Principle: JR is a remedy of last resort to be invoked when other avenues have been explored
Now encoded in Pre Action Protocol: JR may be used where there is no right of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted (para 2)
Policy arguments for the principle:
-Lewis, 1992:
-If Parliament gave an appeals procedure, the court shouldn't usurp the functions of the appellate body (ex parte Guiness plc)
-Appellate bodies better able to resolve disputes of fact than JR
-Gains in expertise by having recourse to alternative remedies: if the appeal is to the court, it can be heard by a division that specializes in the area of law
-Wade and Forsyth, 2009:
-In principle this ought not be a categorical rule - RoL requires that admin actions be challenged in the court as soon as taken or threatened. You shouldn't have to first appeal and see if in the end the action will be taken or not - appeal (on the merits) and review (of legality) are very different.
-[NOTE: Lewis, 1992 objects to the claim that review and appeal are indeed distinct - there's been a large degree of convergence]
-C can demonstrate that his case is different from the type of case that the appeal procedure was designed for (ex parte Swati)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS ACT 2015, SS84-88
S84: likelihood of substantially different outcome for applicant - The amendments require the
High Court to refuse a remedy or permission on an application for judicial review if it considers it highly likely that the defendant's conduct in the matter in question would not have affected the outcome for the applicant.
S85: Provision of information about financial resources - where an applicant applies to the High
Court under the law of England and Wales for permission to proceed with a judicial review,
permission cannot be granted unless the applicant provides information about the financing of the judicial review. Information that may be required includes the source, nature and extent of any financial support that has been or is likely to be provided to the applicant for use in the judicial review proceedings.
S88: Section 88, along with sections 89 and 90, removes the ability of the High Court and the
Court of Appeal to make costs capping orders in a judicial review case unless specified criteria are met. A costs capping order is an order that removes or limits the liability of a party to the proceedings (whether only for the applicant or both the applicant and the defendant) to pay another party's costs incurred in bringing or defending a judicial review.