//
archives

Judicial review

This category contains 32 posts

Tribunal fees are discriminatory and obstruct access to justice

The UK Supreme Court yesterday issued its long-awaited ruling on the legal challenge to the Coalition Government’s introduction of fees for taking an appeal to the employment tribunal. The appeal arose out of judicial review proceedings issued by the trade union UNISON and supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In a landmark ruling, … Continue reading

A Design Problem for Judicial Review: What we know and what we need to know about immigration judicial reviews

By Robert Thomas and Joe Tomlinson Immigration and asylum claimants often use judicial review to challenge immigration refusal decisions made by the Home Office. Immigration-related cases have, for a long time now, presented serious difficulties to the efficient management of the judicial review system in the UK. The transfer of judicial reviews to the Upper … Continue reading

Reconstructing Judicial Review

In her just published book, Reconstructing Judicial Review, Sarah Nason (Bangor University) uses legal theory and empirical research to explore the extent to which the nature of judicial review has changed since 2007. Here she discusses the research behind the book and sets out key features of judicial review as a tool for the advancement … Continue reading

From the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) Chamber: the Home Office must pay regard to the importance of appeal rights when enforcing immigration law

A recent decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) highlights the need for the Home Office to exercise its powers rationally and fairly when enforcing immigration law. In this post Robert Thomas analyses the decision and its importance. By Robert Thomas The recent decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) – … Continue reading

What’s new in administrative justice, November 2016

UK Parliament The Investigatory Powers Bill has entered its final stage and is now ping ponging between the Lords and the Commons. The Commons accepted the majority of the Lords amendments, which were tabled by the Government and were aimed at adding or strengthening safeguards. The Commons rejected amendments tabled by Baroness Hollins, with cross … Continue reading