Judiciary publishes 2022 edition of Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide amid concern at failures to follow Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published the 2022 edition of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide, with senior judges expressing concern at problems the Court has faced when parties fail to follow Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary said the 2022 edition “reflects legislative and practice changes relevant to the Administrative Court over the last year”.
The publication includes guidance on:
- litigants in person
- civil restraint orders
- starting a claim
- applying for permission for judicial review
- specific practice points
- urgent cases
- substantive hearings
- remedies
- case management
- costs
- appeals
In the foreword Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the King’s Bench Division, wrote: “This is the seventh edition of the Judicial Review Guide, which has become a valuable resource for all who are involved in proceedings before the Administrative Court. It covers all the stages of a claim for judicial review. Good practice is identified and pitfalls foreshadowed. It is required reading for all those who conduct judicial review cases (whether or not they are lawyers).”
All Court users are expected to follow the Guide when they prepare and present their cases.
Writing in the preface to the 2022 edition, Mr Justice Swift, Judge in Charge of the Administrative Court, and Mr Justice Chamberlain wrote: “The Guide refers readers to the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Rules and associated Practice Directions. In recent years, the Administrative Court has become one of the busiest specialist courts within the High Court. It is imperative that everyone who is a party to judicial review proceedings is aware of and follows the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions so that Court resources (including the time of the judges who sit in the Administrative Court) are used efficiently.
“That has not uniformly been the case in the past. The Court has experienced problems. To name a few: applications claiming unnecessary urgency; over-long written arguments and bundles of documents; authorities and skeleton arguments being filed very late and in the wrong format. The Court has had occasion to restate the importance of considering carefully whether urgency is required in R (DVP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 606 (Admin). The Court has also emphasised the importance of concision in statements of case and skeleton arguments. On these and other topics, the Guide sets out in clear terms what is expected. Parties and/or their legal representatives may be subject to sanctions if they fail to comply.”
