Law firm calls on smaller regulators to adopt 'JR-lite' model to avoid judicial reviews

Law firm Devonshires has urged smaller regulators to adopt a ‘JR-lite’ approach to ward off long and costly judicial reviews.

The recommendation arose from a conference held by the firm on the Government’s judicial review reforms, which concluded that smaller regulators were still vulnerable to being taken to judicial review, even if the applicant had little realistic chance of success,

In a report on the question, Devonshires recommended the adoption of systems based on those of the Architects Registration Board, which has since 2009 operated third-party review on disputes concerning matters of procedure.

Applicants have 30 days in which to request a review and must identify where they believe procedures have not been followed or where they were inappropriate or inefficient.

Two independent lawyers – a QC and a solicitor – conduct paper-based reviews and a committee then decides whether to accept the reviewer’s comments and recommendations.

The firm concluded that judicial review may be “a headache” for regulators, but can also be “a price worth paying in the right circumstances to ensure that a regulator is doing its job properly and fairly”.

Devonshires partner James Dunn said: “The use of independent lawyers in the Architects Registration Board appears an eminently sensible approach that we recommend other regulators should consider.”

He said improved transparency in policy formation and decision-making – the key planks in any defence to a judicial review were “surely an irreversible trend that is good for regulators and regulated alike”.

Mark Smulian