Another important decision. This is the full judgment: drive.google.com/file/d/1zf_3NX…
The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1402560675059318785
What I find so impressive about @GoodLawProject is they are taking an attritional approach - claim after claim all focussed on establishing principles of good administration. Very few public lawyers have the resources and strategic approach to achieve this
It's difficult to explain how difficult it is to bring a single public law case against the government - to find the right case, the enormous funds required to protect your clients... taking this kind strategic approach is almost impossible, but it's getting results.
Much of public noise around judicial review is generated by press and politicians who for various reasons see it as over the top/a nuisance. There is another narrative, though - that it is nowhere near reaching its potential as a means of keeping public authorities within the law
In a proper balance of powers system, the courts are a balance against the executive. Our courts, to date, have played that role almost apologetically and rarely enthusiastically. That is slowly changing and our public sphere will be the better for it.
Good Law Project is a great set up but it should also be an example to others - that the model works, gets results. Better for there to be 10 Good Law Projects so the government cannot paint them as a singular problem
A few people fairly pointing out there are others organisations which do strategic litigation well - of course I agree. I also think that the potential of Judicial Review as a means of holding public authorities to account is greater than currently being achieved...
... One issue which I think is at the heart of this is the costs regime which puts a prospective claimant at risk of tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of costs. I find it bizarre that in personal injury cases claimants are largely protected from such...
... costs orders but in Judicial Review you have to jump through hoops, and wait months, to find out if you can benefit from a protective costs order. I think there is a good argument that there should be an automatic protection in judicial review cases if permission is granted
If there was substantially less costs risk (and perhaps, whisper, if there was a fixed costs regime for all parties) then there wouldn't be so much need for crowdfunding and therefore generating public interest which doesn't always suit the case, or favours only certain causes
I think that @TomRHickman proposed a fixed costs regime for Judicial Review a while back
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
