In R v P (2020) ECCA 1088 the Court of Appeal considered similar fact evidence in family cases and held that : –

Read more »

In R ( Packham ) v SoS for Transport (2020) EWCA Civ 1004 a Judicial Review challenge by an environmental campaigner  of the continuation of the construction of HS2 failed. The claim had been issued promptly, but a decision whether to proceed with such a project project is a matter of political judgment on a matter of national economic policy for which the SoS is accountable to Parliament. There would be only low intensity review by the Courts, with a broad margin of discretion for the SoS. The Government had not erred in its approach to environmental effects and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Another judicial review challenge to HS2 works succeeded in R ( Hillingdon LBC) v SoS for Transport (2020) EWCA Civ 1005 on planning grounds.

From time to time the basic position in relation to Judicial Review requires to be restated. R (Dolan) v SoS (2020) EWHC 1786 (Admin), was such an occasion. This was a challenge to Coronavirus Restrictions Regulations pursuant to the Public Health ( Control of Diseases) Act 1984.

Read more »

In R (Charles) v SoS for FCO (2020) EWHC 1620 (Admin) a Divisional Court restated that in Judicial Review proceedings (1) standard disclosure is not automatic, (2) the right of inspection of documents referred to in a witness statement is not applicable, (3) a confirmation by a party that it has disclosed all relevant documents is conclusive unless there are grounds for supposing it to be mistaken, and (4) disclosure is of what is necessary for the just and fair determination of the issues.

Judicial review is not like other civil litigation as regards disclosure : para 20. However, there is a “duty of candour” on the parties : para 21.

“ Rolling” JR may be appropriate in some cases. JR does not relate exclusively to specific decisions with specific dates. It may also relate to continuing conduct, when there is a “ moving picture”, as in the adult social care case of R (Raja) v Redbridge LBC (2020) EWHC 1456 ( Admin).

A School’s appeal against the refusal of an interim injunction was dismissed in R ( Governing  Body of X ) v OFSTED (2020) EWCA Civ 594. The injunction sought was to restrain OFSTED from publishing a Report. The Report graded the School as inadequate. The Court of Appeal addressed the approach to interim injunctions in public law proceedings.

It is fundamental to disclosure obligations in litigation that it must not be the client who makes the selection of which documents are relevant and disclosable. That is the responsibility of the solicitor.

Read more »

When there is a statutory discretion is there a requirement to have and publish a policy on the exercise of that discretion? No, says the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in the context of the discretion of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, implementing the Belfast Agreement, to hold a border poll : Application by Raymond McCord for Judicial Review (2020) NICA 23. The case is of general interest on policies, on the rule of law, and on general administrative law principles of consistency, equal treatment, transparency and accountability.

Read more »

Three Court of Appeal Judgments on one day, from an identically constituted Court, on local authorities and remote coronavirus hearings. L (Adoption) (2020) EWCA Civ 577 on covert sibling tests and ECHR Article 8. A (Children) (2020) EWCA Civ 583 providing general guidance. B (Children) (2020) EWCA Civ 584 on procedural principles.

BES v Cheshire West and Chester BC (2020) EWHC 701 (QB) concerns the extent of a local authority’s duty of disclosure in litigation arising out of a trading standards investigation. All 22 local authorities carrying out trading standards functions in the North West Region had signed  Protocol identifying the Defendant as the lead partner for the Regional Investigation Team. The other authorities, including Lancashire County Council (LCC), delegated trading standards functions to the Defendant. The Protocol encouraged the exchange of information and mutual assistance. It fell short of establishing a right, or even a presumption, that certain categories of documents were, without more, to be provided on request.

Read more »