Judicial review handbook / Michael Fordham ; foreword by Lord Woolf.
Material type: TextPublisher: Oxford ; Portland, OR : Hart Pub., 2012Edition: Sixth editionDescription: xx, 869 pages : forms ; 25 cmContent type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
- 1849461597
- 9781849461597
- 347.42012 23
- KD4902 .F67 2012
Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Book | City Campus City Campus Main Collection | 347.42012 FOR (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | A499737B |
Previous ed.: 2008.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Machine generated contents note: A. NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: keys to understanding what the Court is doing -- P1. constitutional guarantee. Judicial review is the rule of law in action: a fundamental and inalienable constitutional protection -- 1.1. Constitutional supervision of public authorities -- 1.2. Judicial review and the rule of law -- 1.3. Judicial review's constitutional inalienability -- P2. Supervisory jurisdiction. Judicial review is a well-established supervisory role by the Court over public bodies -- 2.1. supervisory jurisdiction -- 2.2. Importance and range of subject-matter -- 2.3. Judicial review in other Courts and Tribunals -- 2.4. Administrative Court in action: some special features -- 2.5. Procedural discipline and firm case-management -- 2.6. Basic steps in a judicial review case -- P3. Impact. A successful claim does not necessarily guarantee a favourable ultimate outcome, nor a wider knock-on effect -- 3.1. Remittal and repeatability -- 3.2. Hollow/counterproductive victories -- 3.3. Judicial review as a monetary springboard -- 3.4. Securing assurances/provoking comment -- 3.5. Wider impact/knock-on effect -- P4. Materiality. A claim may fail if lacking substance, as where non-material, non-prejudicial, futile, academic or premature -- 4.1. Practical substance and judicial review -- 4.2. Materiality/material flaw -- 4.3. Lack of prejudice -- 4.4. Futility -- 4.5. Dangers of materiality, prejudice and futility -- 4.6. Hypothetical/academic issues: utility -- 4.7. Prematurity -- P5. Targets. A wide range of measures, acts, decisions, policies and omissions can be the subject of a judicial review challenge -- 5.1. Judicial review and "decisions" -- 5.2. Spectrum of possible targets -- 5.3. Multiple targets/target-selection -- P6. Power sources. Public bodies' powers and duties can arise under or by reference to EU and domestic legislation, common law or prerogative, policy guidance or international law -- 6.1. Powers/duties: basic sources -- 6.2. Policy guidance -- 6.3. International law -- P7. Constitutional fundamentals. Core common law principles can constitute fundamentals of the UK's unwritten constitution -- 7.1. Legislative supremacy -- 7.2. Rule of law/separation of powers -- 7.3. Access to justice -- 7.4. Constitutional/common law rights/duties -- 7.5. Basic fairness/natural justice -- 7.6. Basic reasonableness -- P8. EU law. Domestic statutes, rules and decisions must be compatible with applicable EU legislation and legal principle -- 8.1. EU law supremacy -- 8.2. EU Treaty rights -- 8.3. Judicial review for EU-incompatibility -- 8.4. Reference to the CJEU -- 8.5. EU law damages/reparation -- 8.6. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- P9. HRA. Domestic legislation must be read, and public authorities must act, compatibly with HRA:ECHR rights -- 9.1. HRA: key features and themes -- 9.2. Codified Convention rights -- 9.3. HRA s.2: relationship with Strasbourg -- 9.4. HRA s.3: compatible interpretation -- 9.5. HRA s.6: compatible public authority action -- 9.6. HRA just satisfaction -- P10. Cooperation & candour. The Court will expect from all parties cooperative behaviour and candid disclosure -- 10.1. cooperative enterprise -- 10.2. ADR/mediation -- 10.3. Claimant's duty of candour -- 10.4. Defendant/interested party's duty of candour -- P11. Precedent & authority. Judicial precedent can bind or guide the court; academic and comparative analysis may be persuasive -- 11.1. Use of case-law -- 11.2. Academic commentary/comparative case-law -- P12. Reviewing primary legislation. Courts have restricted functions of assessing legal compatibility of Acts of Parliament -- 12.1. Primary legislation: disapplication under EU law -- 12.2. HRA s.4: declaration of incompatibility -- 12.3. Judicial review of primary legislation at common law -- P13. Restraint. Courts adopt a primary self-restraint, preserving for public bodies a latitude for judgment and discretion -- 13.1. "Soft" review: reasonableness -- 13.2. Restraint and factual questions -- 13.3. Restraint and discretion/judgment -- 13.4. Restraint and expertise -- 13.5. Judicial restraint in action -- 13.6. Protecting public authorities -- 13.7. Review from the decision-maker's point of view -- P14. Balancing. Judicial review principles are a careful evolving equilibrium serving the dual imperatives of vigilance and restraint -- 14.1. Judicial review and striking a balance -- 14.2. Striking a balance: grounds for judicial review -- 14.3. Striking a balance: nothing personal -- 14.4. Convenience and floodgates -- P15. forbidden method. Judges will not intervene as if matters for the public body's judgment were for the Court's judgment -- 15.1. "Soft" review: the forbidden substitutionary approach -- 15.2. "Not an appeal" -- 15.3. "Legality not correctness" -- 15.4. "Not the merits" -- 15.5. "Court does not substitute its own judgment" -- P16. Hard-edged questions. There are certain matters which the Court considers afresh for itself, imposing its own judgment -- 16.1. Hard-edged review: correctness -- 16.2. Precedent fact -- 16.3. Error of law as hard-edged review -- 16.4. Interpretation as a hard-edged question -- 16.5. Procedural fairness as hard-edged review -- 16.6. Hard-edged review: further matters -- P17. Evidence and fact. Judicial review is generally conducted on written evidence and regarded as an unsuitable forum for resolving factual disputes, though this can be appropriate and necessary -- 17.1. Judicial review evidence -- 17.2. Fresh evidence in judicial review -- 17.3. Judicial review and factual disputes -- 17.4. Disclosure, further information and cross-examination -- P18. Costs. Generally, the loser must pay the winner's costs -- 18.1. Costs: general matters -- 18.2. Costs and the permission stage -- 18.3. Costs and the public interest -- 18.4. Costs and discontinuance/early disposal -- 18.5. Special costs responses -- P19. Making the claim. Where pre-claim correspondence fails, claims are to be made and acknowledged in the prescribed way -- 19.1. Pre-claim steps -- 19.2. Making the claim -- 19.3. Acknowledging the claim -- P20. Interim remedies. The Court can make orders securing a particular state of affairs pending final resolution of the claim -- 20.1. Interim remedies -- 20.2. balance of convenience -- P21. Permission. The claimant must obtain permission for judicial review, by prompt and candid papers disclosing an arguable case -- 21.1. Granting or refusing permission -- 21.2. Case-management at the permission stage -- P22. Substantive hearing. At the hearing the Court decides whether there are grounds for intervening and whether to grant a remedy -- 22.1. Post-permission/pre-hearing steps -- 22.2. Third party participation -- 22.3. Disposal without a hearing -- 22.4. substantive hearing -- P23. Appeal. An appeal lies from the Administrative Court's decisions (except the grant of permission) -- 23.1. Permission-stage appeals -- 23.2. Substantive appeals -- 23.3. Nature of the Court of Appeal's approach -- P24. Remedies. The Court has discretionary power to quash, mandate, prevent and clarify -- 24.1. remedial toolkit -- 24.2. declaration -- 24.3. Remedy as a discretionary matter -- 24.4. remedies in action -- P25. Monetary remedies. Judicial review embraces damages, debt and restitution, HRA "just satisfaction" and EU reparation; but a broader financial response to maladministration awaits development -- 25.1. Availability of debt, restitution and damages -- 25.2. Recognised species of monetary claim -- 25.3. Public law reparation: no damages for maladministration -- B. PARAMETERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: further dominant themes shaping the law and practice -- P26. Delay. Claims must be prompt (3 months in an EU case); undue delay can be fatal to permission or (if prejudicial) a remedy -- 26.1. approach to delay -- 26.2. Promptness and the running of time -- 26.3. Good reason to extend time -- 26.4. Hardship, prejudice and detriment -- P27. Public/private. Judicial review is the (normally non-exclusive) application of "public law" principles to "public" functions -- 27.1. public/private distinction -- 27.2. Public law principles outside CPR -- 27.3. Procedural exclusivity/abuse of process -- P28. Ouster. Head-on statutory exclusion of judicial review is theoretically possible but constitutionally dubious -- 28.1. Ousting judicial review: a hostile climate -- 28.2. Time-limit ousters -- P29. Interpretation. Discerning the true meaning of legislative and other relevant sources is vital to effective judicial review -- 29.1. purposive approach to interpretation -- 29.2. Legislative purpose and judicial review -- 29.3. Statutory interpretation -- 29.4. Using Hansard -- 29.5. Interpreting other sources -- P30. Function. It is essential to understand the role and responsibilities of the decision-maker under review -- 30.1. Understanding the defendant's function -- 30.2. Traditional functional labels -- 30.3. judicial/administrative distinction -- 30.4. Other aspects of function -- P31. Context. Context being everything, the Court will always respond to the nature and circumstances of the individual case -- 31.1. Contextualism -- 31.2. Circumstances -- 31.3. Characteristics and conduct of the claimant -- 31.4. Claimant's failure to complain/raise the concern at the time -- 31.5. "Flexi-principles" -- P32. Modified review. Matters may involve part-availability of judicial review; or restricted or enhanced grounds.
Machine converted from AACR2 source record.
There are no comments on this title.