The Law Society has sounded a loud note of caution over government plans to curb the ability of so-called ‘Nimbys’ to block infrastructure projects through judicial review.
An independent review of legal challenges to nationally significant infrastructure projects, published yesterday, found that 58% had been challenged in court. Downing Street said each legal challenge takes on average 18 months to be resolved and the courts spent over 10,000 working days on these cases. ‘The current rules don’t work,’ Sir Keir Starmer said, adding that ‘unwinnable’ cases can be brought to the courts three times.
To streamline the system, the prime minister proposed scrapping two of the three stages of a judicial review challenge. This would remove the paper permission stage and claimants’ rights to take cases deemed totally without merit to the Court of Appeal. However, removing the right to appeal would require primary legislation, Starmer said.
Read more
Law Society president Richard Atkinson said any reforms must balance efficiency with access to justice. ‘Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law by ensuring that decisions on major infrastructure projects are made in accordance with the law,’ he said. ‘Removing the paper permission stage could increase both the cost and length of permission hearings. We believe this would benefit from further analysis before reforms are taken forward.’
Atkinson added that making permission decisions on the papers saves costs and resources for both parties. ‘It is possible that the certainty of higher costs – especially so early in the case, before permission is even granted – could discourage a claimant to the extent that it raises concerns for access to justice,’ he said. ‘Requiring oral hearings for all permission applications may also lengthen these proceedings, as it prevents those that could be easily dealt with from progressing more quickly.’
Meanwhile, Jo Maugham, executive director of activist group the Good Law Project, said: ‘They might make a good story but there is no real substance to these changes. A rule blocking an appeal against the dismissal of a meritless judicial review already exists.’
2 Readers' comments