TY  - BOOK
AU  - Fordham,Michael
TI  - Judicial review handbook
SN  - 1849461597
AV  - KD4902 .F67 2012
U1  - 347.42012 23
PY  - 2012///
CY  - Oxford, Portland, OR
PB  - Hart Pub.
KW  - Judicial review
KW  - England
KW  - Wales
KW  - Judicial review of administrative acts
KW  - Great Britain
KW  - Digests
N1  - 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
ER  -