ABSTRACT
Judicial review is the procedure whereby the High Court is able, in certain cases, to review the legality of decisions made by a wide variety of bodies which affect the public, ranging from government ministers exercising prerogative1 or statutory powers, to the actions of certain powerful self-regulating bodies. In Part V Chapter 2, the principles which the courts apply in making this assessment are considered. This chapter is concerned with the principles which determine whether review will be available or whether the complainant must rely on private law remedies; it examines the important procedural implications for the complainant which result from this public/private divide. Recent reforms to judicial review procedure represented by the new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Part 54 are explored. These rules came into force on 2 October 2000, the same day as the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It should be noted that cases concerning applications made before this date will be governed by Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and so will often refer to ‘Ord 53’. Much of the case law decided under Ord 53 remains a reliable guide to how things will be conducted under the new CPR. As Fordham comments: ‘Part 54 [CPR] is not identical to RSC Order 53 but its practical effect on key points remains the same.’2 The issue of who may apply for review is also given thorough discussion, with particular reference to the position of campaigning groups, which are increasingly turning to legal methods as a way of attacking decisions to which they are opposed. Related matters, such as the circumstances in which review may be excluded, are also explored.
