Judicial Review is the process of challenging the decisions or omissions made by Statutory Bodies which unfairly reduce your Rights and Liberty.
DL Law have and continue to be central both as Litigator and Advocate on a series of high profile landmark campaigns
● JR is often considered to be most suitable when a government body makes a decision that is either beyond their powers, irrelevant to the matter in hand, is fettered by improper process or ulterior agenda, is based on an error in law or fact. But we have also brought cases where the body has ommitted to do what it is supposed to in the statutory duty of discharging its responsibilites.
● The cost to commence proceedings from a court fee viewpoint is minimal. Indeed often as low as £175 to get proceedings started. The cost thereafter can be considerable in legal and expert fees but it is possible with the correct arguments to persuade the court to cap costs.
● DL Law has successfully manged to persuade the court to grant anonymity orders and even extensions to statutory time limits.
Some Practitioner Notes to Remember
As established in WDM v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: The preliminary hearing must establish that:
a. There is a need to uphold the rule of law with the specific matter in hand;
b. The court will consider the importance of the issue raised;
c. The likely absence of any other responsible challenger (the Locus Standi hurdle) is important to progressing your claim
d. A JR must be started in the KBD of the High Court – PD7A, Schedule 1, Senior Courts Act 1981, paragraph 2(b). Electronic CE-Filing is not permitted although the court clerk may ask for an electronic version of the application to be filed instead of hard copy.
Cost Capping Orders - S.88 CJCA 2015 requires that the preliminary stage must grant full JR before a CCO can be considered but the application for CCO should be submitted with the claim form at section 8. So costs are liable to the other side up to and including the preliminary stage before protection is gained at the substantive hearing and in between.
Applications for an Anonymity Orders under CPR 39.2(4) should be made on notice. There must be clear and cogent evidence as to why the court should depart from the open justice principle (Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority).
