In CHURCHILL v MERTHYR TYDFIL CBC ( 2023 ) EWCA Civ 1416 the Court of Appeal says that a Court may lawfully stay Court proceedings for, or Order, the parties to engage in a non-Court based Dispute Resolution Process, provided that the Order made (1) does not impair the very essence of the Claimant’s right to proceed to a judicial hearing and (2) is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost. The Court declined to lay down principles as to what will be relevant in determining the question of a stay of proceedings or an Order that the parties engage in a non-court based dispute resolution procedure. The kind of non-court based dispute resolution procedure in issue was an internal Complaints Procedure operated by the local authority to which the Claimant was not contractually bound.

The general rule in civil cases is that a party must challenge by cross-examination evidence of any witness of an opposing party on a material point which he or she claims should not be accepted by the Trial Judge. This applies not only to witnesses of fact, and/or where the character of the witness is impugned, but also, the Supreme Court says in TUI v GRIFFITHS ( 2023) UKSC 48 to expert witnesses. This however is not a rigid requirement. It depends upon the circumstances of each case. The question is whether, taken as a whole, the trial is fair. The Supreme Court gives non-exclusive instances in which this requirement may be relaxed.

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS v LONDON GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS ( 2023 ) UKSC 47 concers Injunctions obtained by local authorities to prevent unlawful encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. The Supreme Court holds that the Courts have power to grant “ Newcomer Injunctions .” “ Newcomers “ are persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date of the grant of the Injunction, and who have not yet performed, or even threatened to perform, the acts which the Injunction prohibits. However, the Supreme Court says that the power should be exercised only in circumstances where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law that is not met by any other available remedies. In addition, “ Newcomer Injunctions “ should be made subject to procedural safeguards to protect newcomers’ rights.

In general, Judicial Review remedies are forward looking. They are for where the public authority does not remedy the breach itself. Generally, the function of Judicial Review is not to conduct an inquest into whether or not the authority is culpable for an unsatisfactory situation. In R ( KENT COUNTY COUNCIL ) v SSHD ( 2023 ) EWHC 3030 ( Admin ) Chamberlain j adds, at para 31, that, in some situations, it may be difficult to form a view about the  lawfulness of an authority’s present conduct without at least some understanding of the lawfulness of past conduct.

I R ( IAB ) v SSHD (2023) EWHC 2930 (Admin) Swift J gave guidance on the Duty of Candour and on the procedure to be adopted by a party who wishes documents in Judicial Review proceedings to be redacted so as not to disclose the names of employees and/or contractors. The Duty of Candour is an obligation of explanation, rather than simply an obligation to disclose. It exists to ensure that the reasoning process underlying a challenged decision is explained. Disclosure of relevant material is required when it is necessary for the fair and just determination of an issue in the case. A person disclosing a redacted document should fully and succinctly explain at the point of disclosure the reason for the redaction and do so in a witness statement.