100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary Administrative Law - Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 $10.99   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Administrative Law

Summary

Summary Administrative Law - Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
 1 view  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Administrative Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/essay plan on the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. This document covers the rationale behind the legislation, the effect of s.2 of the legislation, the consequences of the legislation, and the apparent ouster clause in the legislation (including analysis of a 2023 Court of...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 6, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • judicial review
  • cart v upper tribunal
  • cart
  • ouster clause
  • cart judicial review
  • judicial review and courts act 2022

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Administrative Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022
1. Introduction:
Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 was enacted following the Independent
Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and a subsequent Government consultation
process.
s.2 involves the reversal of R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal, which adopted the
second-tier appeals criteria, holding that judicial review of the Upper
Tribunal’s permission-to-appeal should be available whenever the intended
challenge raises an important point of principle of practice or where there is
some other compelling reason for the High Court to hear the claim.
This is evident by s.2(1)(2) which states that with regard to the Upper
Tribunal’s permission-to-appeal decision, this “decision is final, and
not liable to be questioned or set aside in any other court.”
This is not, however, a complete ouster.
s.2(4) retains 4 grounds on which judicial review is retained.
This essay will argue that enactment of this section was a serious misstep by
Parliament.
Not only is the Government’s rationale behind the clause flawed and
unfounded, but the section is also liable to have a detrimental impact on
access to justice, thereby running contrary to the rule of law.
What’s more, the 4 grounds on which judicial review is retained seem wholly
arbitrary and they are so narrow that, while in name not a complete ouster,
the section has almost the same effect as if it was.
2. Rationale behind the statute:
It is clear from the Government’s response to the IRAL that the primary reason
behind the enactment of s.2 of the Act appears to be based on efficiency and
proportionality.
They claim that resources have been disproportionately allocated to Cart
judgements relative to its effectiveness, finding a success rate of 0.22%
(which after re-evaluation was raised to 3%).
BUT – as Tomlinson and Pickup pointed out, the IRAL’s method of evaluating this
success rate is questionable and inaccurate.
It was stated that there were 5502 applications for JR under the rule in Cart
of which only 12 cases were deemed to be officially successful, which led to
the Panel’s finding that only 0.22% of all applications were successful.
The fatal flaw with this, however, is that official reports/transcripts were accessible in
only 45 of these 5502 cases.
Tomlinson and Pickup submitted that a more accurate representation would
be made if the success rate were obtained by using the number of positive
results only from cases with recorded results since it would be “absurd” to
assume that the remaining 5457 cases without official reports were
unsuccessful.
Following this method, they approximate the success rate to be more
in the region of 26.7%.
This figure was not meant to be taken seriously as the stat,
but rather highlights the flaw in the method in determining
the success rate of Cart applications.
The Government’s claim that s.2 was needed to counteract the low success rate
therefore appears to be unsubstantiated.
3. Rationale continued:
The Ministry of Justice also believed that this section “that removes the Cart
judgement will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation” and

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

78834 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.99
  • (0)
  Add to cart