1. 2007 Case Law Update: Judicial Review James Findlay, 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square

2. Davey v Aylesbury Vale [2007] EWHC 116 (QB) 1. Issue: Ability of successful defendant to recover pre- permission costs following substantive JR hearing 2. The general rules : discretion (s.51 SCA 1981); costs follow the event (CPR 44.3); costs include pre- permission costs (e.g. PAP); costs to be reasonable (CPR 44.4(1)) 3. JR specific rules : -Costs in the case following permission(PS JR:Costs) -Defendant’s costs of attending permission hearing (54 PD)

3. 4. The exception in Leach : successful defendant at permission stage can recovers costs but limited to preparation of acknowledgment of service 5.High Court held that, absent some exceptional order, Defendant’s costs are not limited. 6.Court of Appeal

4. R (Shirley Ann Lawer) v Restormel Borough Council [2007] EWHC 2299 1. Issue : urgent ex parte applications 2. Facts : -Interim mandatory injunction forcing LA to accommodate pending homelessness review; -Application made and granted Friday evening; -LA’s application to set aside following Friday; -Munby J : material non-disclosure, claim ‘devoid of merit’, PAP ignored, application inappropriate. = injunction set aside

5. 3.Munby J on applicant’s ‘heavy duty’ of full and frank disclosure : Specific identification of all relevant docs and passages. Ensuring judge understands significance. Telephone : Burden more onerous. No exoneration where respondent has informal notice. Failure to comply risks denial of relief even where strong merit. Prevailing practice : practitioners take heed. 4.R(Casey) v Restormel BC & Form N463 : Change of practice in the administrative court…

6. N.A.W. v Condron [2007] LGR 87 1.Issue : Bias/Predetermination but also value of defence evidence 2.Facts: alleged pre-determination by: ‘going to go with inspector’s report’ day before decision. Failure to put in witness statement explaining circumstances. 3.Porter v Magill : ‘fair minded and informed observer…real possibility…tribunal biased’

7. Relevant circumstances : as apparent to court upon investigation, i.e. all facts not those known to hypothetical observer Distinction between predisposition and predetermination. High Court found in favour of Claimant, but overruled by CA. Influenced by lack of evidence/explanation from Minister. 4. Ladd v Marshall : CA Refusal to admit witness evidence not before judge below (but had read it!) No second chance.

8. End of Presentation Click here for next slidehere