Judicial Review

Author: Sarah Harvie-Clark

PDF Published: Monday 27 Jun 2022 (SB 22-35)

Expand
Overview
Report

Hide

Hide

Overview
Report
- Executive Summary
- Introduction and background
  - Why judicial review matters
  - What this briefing covers
- An overview of judicial review in Scotland
  - Which court?
  - Some key terms
  - How the court decides what to do
  - Public bodies and government ministers
  - Private bodies
  - Legislation
  - The costs of a judicial review action and how to pay for it
  - Some preliminary requirements associated with a judicial review action
  - Key stages of a judicial review action
  - The grounds of review
  - Legal remedies
- Judicial review in practice: the statistics and the headlines
  - A very small part of the courts’ total caseload
  - Trends in the judicial review caseload
  - What are judicial review cases raised on?
    
    Immigration and asylum cases
    
    Other cases
  - A snapshot of some recent high-profile cases
- Key constitutional developments affecting judicial review
  - Human rights and judicial review
    
    The Human Rights Act 1998
    
    A new ground of review - breach of Convention rights
    
    Public bodies and subordinate legislation
    
    Acts of the UK Parliament
    
    Obligation to interpret
    
    Declaration of incompatibility
  - The impact of the UK's changing relationship with the EU on judicial review
    
    The impact of the UK's membership of the EU
    
    The UK's departure from the EU and EU retained law
    
    Retained EU law and judicial review
    
    A possible breach of retained EU law
    
    Challenging retained EU law by way of judicial review
    
    EU-derived domestic legislation
    
    Direct EU legislation
    
    Other relevant parts of the UK-EU Brexit arrangements
    
    Subordinate legislation after Brexit
  - Judicial review and the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government
    
    The Scotland Act 1998: legislative competence
    
    The approach to Acts of the Scottish Parliament and legislative competence
    
    Legislative competence: EU law and EU retained law
    
    Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the 'traditional' grounds of review
- The mechanics of judicial review in more detail
  - Who can raise judicial review proceedings - in more detail
    
    Standing in judicial review cases: the general position
    
    The new test in the AXA case - in more detail
    
    After AXA - uncertainties and the continued importance of case law
    
    Sufficient interest under statute
    
    Cases relating to Convention rights
  - Funding a judicial review action
    
    Legal aid and judicial review
    
    Advice and Assistance
    
    Civil Legal Aid
    
    Protective expenses orders
    
    PEOs in environmental cases
    
    Other public interest cases
    
    The Aarhus Convention and environmental cases
  - Third party interventions
    
    Where the person is 'directly affected'
    
    Public interest intervention
  - The scope of judicial review
    
    The general position
    
    Cases relating to Convention rights
  - Grounds of judicial review
    
    Illegality
    
    Breach of a statutory duty
    
    Where there is a broad discretion
    
    Outcome duties
    
    Errors of law and errors of fact
    
    Errors of law
    
    Errors of fact
    
    Review where there is discretion
    
    Relevant considerations and irrelevant considerations
    
    Improper purpose
    
    Fettering of discretion
    
    Exercise of power by the wrong person
    
    Breach of Convention rights
    
    Absolute, limited and qualified rights
    
    Breach of retained EU Law
    
    Sources of EU law which were retained
    
    Sources of EU law which were not retained
    
    Procedural impropriety or unfairness
    
    Sources of procedural requirements
    
    The specific principles underpinning procedural fairness
    
    Rule against bias
    
    Right to a fair hearing
    
    Duty to give reasons
    
    Consultations by the decision maker
    
    Unjustified departure from legitimate expectations
    
    Procedural protection or protecting the substance of the expectation?
    
    Unreasonableness, proportionality and another emerging ground of review
    
    Unreasonableness or irrationality
    
    Variable intensity of review
    
    The principle of proportionality
    
    Breaches of Convention rights
    
    Proportionality in other cases
    
    Constitutional rights, principles or values
- Legal remedies available in judicial review actions
- Judicial review as part of the wider system for addressing grievances
  - Alternatives to judicial review
    
    Internal complaints or review procedures
    
    Alternative dispute resolution
    
    Ombudsmen and other external complaints handlers
    
    Statutory right of appeal
  - Judicial review and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
- Tribunals and judicial review
  - An overview of the tribunal system
  - Transfer of judicial review cases from the Court of Session to the Upper Tribunals
  - Decisions of the Upper Tribunals which cannot be appealed
- Policy initiatives relating to judicial review
  - Policy initiatives of the UK Government
    
    Judicial review
    
    Human rights legislation
  - Policy initiatives of the Scottish Government
    
    Human rights legislation
    
    Access to environmental justice and an environmental court
Sources

This is a line graph showing, with a purple line, the number of judicial cases begun in Scotland over a ten year period and, with a dotted yellow line, the number of judicial review cases disposed of by the court over the same period. Cases initiated and disposed of have been variable.

Image: Figure 1: Scottish judicial review cases initiated and disposed of between 2011-12 and 2020-21

This figure shows the trends in judicial review cases by policy area between 2011-12 and 2020-21. Immigration and asylum cases, following by a category known simply as 'other' under the Scottish Government categorisation, have been the two main types of case initiated over the ten year period.

Image: Figure 2: Scottish judicial review cases initiated by policy area between 2011-12 and 2020-21

This is an infographic showing the scope for a judicial review challenge to EU-derived domestic legislation according to the different grounds of review and the type of legislation at issue (for example, primary or subordinate legislation; Scottish or UK legislation). An alleged breach of Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 is the only ground of review possible in respect of all types of EU-derived domestic legislation.

Image: Figure 3: Judicial review and EU-derived domestic legislation

This is an infographic showing the scope for a judicial review challenge to EU direct legislation, according to the different grounds of review and the type of legislation at issue Overall, an alleged breach of Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 is the only ground of review possible in respect of (both types of) EU direct legislation.

Image: Figure 4: Judicial review and direct EU legislation

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Pratical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, p ix. Edinburgh: W Green.

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 1-01. Edinburgh: W Green.

Scottish Government. (2021, January). Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law - second edition. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/right-first-time-practical-guide-public-authorities-scotland-decision-making-law-second-edition/

Guy, S. (2021, October). Access to justice on the market: an empirical case study on the dynamics of crowdfunding judicial reviews, P.L. 2021, Oct, 678-687.

Dowden-Teale, E., & Gage, F. (2018). Bate Wells - Charity and Social Enterprise Update Spring 2018: Crowdfunding Judicial Review.

Maugham, J. (2020, July 20). Is crowdfunding the next mis-selling scandal?. Retrieved from https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/is-crowdfunding-the-next-mis-selling-scandal/5105038.article

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, paras 2-066 and 2-068. Edinburgh: W Green.

McCue v Glasgow City Council [2014] CSOH 124; 2014 S.L.T. 891; 2015 S.C.L.R. 186; [2014] 8 WLUK 138; 2014 G.W.D. 26-510 . (2014, August 8).

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 4-037. Edinburgh: W Green.

Wightman v The Advocate General [ 2018 ] CSIH 18 2018 S.C. 388; 2018 S.L.T. 356; 2018 S.C.L.R. 588; [2018] 3 WLUK 461; 2018 G.W.D. 11-129 [2018] C.L.Y. 2736. (2018, March 20). Retrieved from https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2018csih18.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 5-052. Edinburgh: W Green.

Scottish Government. (2021, April 27). Civil Justice Statistics in Scotland: 2019-2020, Tables 1 and 25. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2021/04/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20/documents/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables/govscot%3Adocument/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables.xlsx

Page, A. (2015). Judicial Review Caseload: an Anglo-Scottish Comparison, p 339, Table 1. Jur. Rev. 2015, 4, 337-352.

Scottish Government. (2020, April 27). Civil Justice Statistics in Scotland 2019-20, Table 25. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2021/04/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20/documents/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables/govscot%3Adocument/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2019-20-main-tables.xlsx?forceDownload=true

Scottish Government. (2022, April 28). Civil Justice Statistics in Scotland 2020-21, para 2.2. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2022/04/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21/documents/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21/govscot%3Adocument/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21.pdf

Scottish Government. (2022, April 28). Scottish Civil Justice Statistics 2020-21, Table 25. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/statistics/2022/04/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21/documents/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21-main-tables/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21-main-tables/govscot%3Adocument/civil-justice-statistics-scotland-2020-21-main-tables.xlsx

Page, A. (2015). The Judicial Review Caseload: an Anglo-Scottish Comparison. Jur.Rev.2015, 4, 337-352, at p 347.

Thompson, B. (2015). The Place of Judicial Review in the Administrative Justice System. Jur.Rev.2015, 4, 417-438, p 428.

Page, A. (2015). The Judicial Review Caseload: an Anglo-Scottish Comparison. Jur. Rev. 2015, 4, p p 343 and 345.

R. (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5; [2018] A.C. 61; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 583; [2017] 1 All E.R. 593; [2017] N.I. 141; [2017] 1 WLUK 387; [2017] 2 C.M.L.R. 15; [2017] H.R.L.R. 2; ?Times, January 25, 2017; [2017] C.L.Y. 441. (2017, January 24). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

R. (on the application of Miller) v Prime Minister; [2019] UKSC 41 [2020] A.C. 373; ?[2019] 3 W.L.R. 589; [2019] 4 All E.R. 299; 2020 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 1; 2019 S.L.T. 1143; 2019 S.C.L.R. 1028; [2019] 9; WLUK 256 2019 G.W.D. 30-474; Times, October 14, 2019; [2019] C.L.Y. 573. (2019, September 24). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Philip v Scottish Ministers [2021] CSOH 52 [2021] 5 WLUK 222; 2021 G.W.D. 19-267. (2020, May 19). Retrieved from https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh98a2d47ea8898069d2b500ff0000d74aa7.pdf?sfvrsn=0

R. (on the application of Rowley) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2021] EWHC 2108 (Admin); [2021] 7 WLUK 444. (2021, July 28). Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/R-on-the-application-of-Katherine-Rowley-v-Minister-for-the-Cabinet-Office.pdf

Somerville v Scottish Ministers. (2007). [2007] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2734; 2008 S.C. (H.L.) 45; 2007 S.L.T. 1113; 2007 S.C.L.R. 830; [2007] 10 WLUK 616; [2008] H.R.L.R. 3; [2008] U.K.H.R.R. 570; (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 1398; 2007 G.W.D. 37-656. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071024/somerv-1.htm

Salvesen v Riddell. (2013). [2013] UKSC 22 2013 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 236; 2013 S.L.T. 863; ?2014 S.C.L.R. 44; [2013] 4 WLUK 543; [2013] H.R.L.R. 23; 2013 G.W.D. 14-304; [2013] C.L.Y. 1865. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0111.html

Christian Institute v Lord Advocate. (2016). [2016] UKSC 51 2017 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 29; 2016 S.L.T. 805; 2016 S.C.L.R. 448; [2016] 7 WLUK 790; [2016] H.R.L.R. 19; [2016] E.L.R. 474; (2016) 19 C.C.L. Rep. 422 2016; G.W.D. 22-401; Times, September 26, 2016; [2016] C.L.Y. 848. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html

AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate, AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate. (2011). [2011] UKSC 46 [2012] 1 A.C. 868; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 871; 2012 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 122; 2011 S.L.T. 1061; [2011] 10 WLUK 287; [2012] H.R.L.R. 3; [2011] U.K.H.R.R. 1221; (2011) 122 B.M.L.R. 149; (2011) 108(41); L.S.G. 22 Times, October 19, 2011; [2011] C.L.Y. 473. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2011-0108.html

Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; [2013] P.T.S.R. 51; 2013 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 67; ?2012 S.L.T. 1211; [2012] 10 WLUK 519; [2013] 1 C.M.L.R. 28; [2013] Env. L.R. 16; [2013] J.P.L. 323; 2012 G.W.D. 34-689; [2013] C.L.Y. 3703. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2012-0098.html

Mullen, T. (2015). Public Interest Litigation in Scotland. Jur. Rev. 2015, 4, 363-383 at pp 371-372.

Mullen, T. (2015). Public Interest Litigation in Scotland. Jur. Rev. 2015, 4, 363-383 at pp 377-378.

The Christian Institute and others v Lord Advocate, at para 37; [2015] CSIH 64 2016 S.C. 47; 2015 S.L.T. 633; [2015] 9 WLUK 58; 2015 Fam. L.R. 121; 2015 G.W.D. 29-484; [2015] C.L.Y. 3087. (2015, September 3).

National Taskforce for Human Rights. (2021, March 12). National Taskforce for Human Rights: leadership report. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-taskforce-human-rights-leadership-report/

Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland . (2021, October). Why Scotland needs an environmental court or tribunal, p 10. Retrieved from https://www.ercs.scot/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ECT_report_Oct-2021-v2.pdf

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 2-04. Edinburgh: W Green.

Bremner, A. (2021, August 19). Legal Aid - How it Works. Retrieved from https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2021/8/19/d60c5da7-11e1-49d1-b8df-aa0bb65cf9e5?wp-linkindex=31&utm_campaign=eBulletin_27_August_2021_issue&utm_content=news.parliament.scot&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Scottish_Parliament_Corporate_Body

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 2-07. Edinburgh: W Green.

Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. (2021, October). Why Scotland needs an environmental court or tribunal. Retrieved from https://www.ercs.scot/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ECT_report_Oct-2021-v2.pdf

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 16.094. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Scottish Civil Courts Review. (2009). Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review, Volume 2, recommendations 155 and 159.

Taylor, J. (2013). Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland: A Report by Sheriff Principal James A Taylor, chapter 5. Retrieved from https://www.scottishciviljusticecouncil.gov.uk/docs/librariesprovider4/caf-committee-papers/16-june-2014/paper-3-1-scottish-government-response-to-the-taylor-review.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. (2021, November). Scotland’s non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention on prohibitive expenses: Recommendations for a plan of action on judicial expenses. Retrieved from https://www.ercs.scot/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Briefing-on-Judicial-Expenses_ERCS_Nov21.pdf

S v Scottish Ministers [2020] CSIH 64; 2020 S.L.T. 1254; ?[2020] 10 WLUK 157; 2020 G.W.D. 33-420; [2021] 1 C.L. 296. (2020, October 16). Retrieved from https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih64.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The Christian Institute and others v Lord Advocate [2015] CSIH 64, 2015 WL 5037826. (2015, September 3).

West v Secretary of State for Scotland (1992) SC 385. (1992).

Crocket v Tantallon Golf Club 2005 SLT 663. (2005).

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 1.07. Edinburgh: W Green.

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, paras 5-053-5-057. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition . London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Reid, C. (2012). A new sort of duty? The significance of "outcome" duties in the climate change and child poverty acts. Public Law, 2012(4), 749-767.

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 5-075. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Himsworth, C. (n.d.) Jurisdictional Aspects of Judicial Review in Scots Law. Jur. Rev. 2015, 4, pp 353-362 at p 354.

Eba v Advocate General (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 29 | [2012] 1 A.C. 710 | [2011] 3 W.L.R. 149 | [2011] P.T.S.R. 1095 | [2011] S.T.C. 1705 | 2012 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 1 | 2011 S.L.T. 768 | [2011] 6 WLUK 522 | [2011] Imm. A.R. 745 | [2011] S.T.I. 1941 | (2011) 108(27) L.S.G. 24 | (2011) 161 N.L.J. 917. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0206.html

[1943] 2 All E.R. 560 | [1943] 10 WLUK 5. (1943).

Department for Exiting the European Union. (2018). Explanatory Notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, paras 92-94. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/pdfs/ukpgaen_20180016_en.pdf

Department for Exiting the European Union. (2018). Explanatory Notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, para 93. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/notes

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 7-036 (quoting judges in various previously decided cases).. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22 | [2015] 2 All E.R. 942; [2015] P.T.S.R. 549; [2015] 4 WLUK 66; [2015] H.L.R. 22; [2015] B.L.G.R. 215; (2015) 18 C.C.L. Rep. 201. (2015, April 2). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0275.html

R. (on the application of Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] EWHC 311 (Admin); [2007] 2 WLUK 394; [2007] Env. L.R. 29; [2007] J.P.L. 1314; [2007] N.P.C. 21 Times, February 20, 2007; [2007] C.L.Y. 57. (2007, February 15).

R (on the application of Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3947; [2015] 1 All E.R. 495; [2014] P.T.S.R. 1317; [2014] 10 WLUK 872; [2014] B.L.G.R. 823 | [2015] R.V.R. 93 | Times, November 5, 2014 . (2014, October 29).

Scottish Government. (2021, January). Right First Time: A Practical Guide for Public Authorities to Decision-making and the Law - Second Edition, p 16. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/s801059/Downloads/right-first-time-practical-guide-public-authorities-scotland-decision-making-law%20(5).pdf

The Independent Review of Administrative Law. (2021, March). Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, para 3.27. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970797/IRAL-report.pdf

R v Liverpool Corp Ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 QB 299. (1972).

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Yuen [1983] 2 AC 629. (1983).

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, paras 12-003 to 12-011 and 12-015. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213. (2001).

R (on the application of Patel) v General Medical Council [2013] EWCA Civ 327; 2013 WL 617885. (2013, March 27). Retrieved from https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/327.html

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680; (1947) 63 T.L.R. 623; [1947] 11 WLUK 26; (1948) 112 J.P. 55; 45 L.G.R. 635; [1948] L.J.R. 190; (1947) 177 L.T. 641; (1948) 92 S.J. 26. (1948).

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 11-97. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Independent Review of Administrative Law. (2021). Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, paras 3.12 and 2.29. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970797/IRAL-report.pdf

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 11-090. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 11-102. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission and Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2021). The proportionality principle explained. Retrieved from https://eqhria.scottishhumanrights.com/eqhriatrainingproportionality.html [accessed 16 September 2021]

Woolf, H., Jowell, J., Donnelly, C., & Hare, I. (2020). De Smith's Principles of Judicial Review, Second Edition, para 11-081. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

R (on the application of Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69; [2016]; A.C. 1355; [2015] 3 W.L.R. 1665; ?[2016] 4 All E.R. 794; [2015] 11 WLUK 613; [2016] H.R.L.R. 2; 40 B.H.R.C. 228; Times, December 15, 2015 [2016] C.L.Y. 45. (2015, November 25). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0203.html

The Independent Review of Administrative Law. (2021, March). Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, paras 3.29-3.34. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970797/IRAL-report.pdf

R (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] A.C. 1787; ?[2015] 2 W.L.R. 813; ?[2015] 4 All E.R. 395; [2015] 3 WLUK 802; [2015] 2 C.M.L.R. 43; [2015] Env. L.R. 34; [2015] F.S.R. 26; [2015] C.L.Y. 43. (2015, March 26). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0137.html

R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51; [2020] A.C. 869; [2017] 3 W.L.R. 409; [2017] 4 All E.R. 903; [2017] 7 WLUK 601; [2017] 4 Costs L.R. 721; [2018] 1 C.M.L.R. 35; [2017] I.C.R. 1037; [2017] I.R.L.R. 911; [2017] H.R.L.R. 11 . (2017, July 26). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html

McCue's Guardian v Glasgow City Council [2020] CSIH 51; 2021 S.C. 107; 2020 S.L.T. 963; [2020] 8 WLUK 163; 2020 G.W.D. 26-352; [2020] C.L.Y. 2352. (2020, August 21). Retrieved from https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih51.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Brodies. (2020, September 11). Alternative remedies to judicial review: complaints to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman ('SPSO'). Retrieved from https://brodies.com/insights/public-law-and-regulation/alternative-remedies-to-judicial-review-complaints-to-the-scottish-public-services-ombudsman/

Heaney, B. (2020, August). Complaint to Ombudsman was not an alternative to judicial review Civ. P.B. 2020, 155, 7.

Drummond, L., McCartney, F., & Poole, A. (2020). A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland, para 6-044. Edinburgh: W Green .

Eba v Advocate General for Scotland; [2011] UKSC 29; [2012] 1 A.C. 710?; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 149?; [2011] P.T.S.R. 1095; [2011] S.T.C. 1705; 2012 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 1?; 2011 S.L.T. 768?; [2011] 6 WLUK 522; [2011] Imm. A.R. 745; [2011] S.T.I. 1941; (2011) 108(27) L.S.G. 24; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 917 [2011] C.L.Y. 3958. (2011, June 22). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0206-judgment.pdf

R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal; . (2011, June 11). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0176.html

Scottish Government. (2021, March). UK Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR): response by the Scottish Government. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-response-uk-independent-human-rights-act-review/

Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill . (2021, October 6). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0079.html

Evans, A. (2022, March 16). Economic, social and cultural rights and the proposed Human Rights Bill, SPICe Briefing 22-19. Retrieved from https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2022/3/16/fcf45055-9ebf-48ca-b2b6-11787fcb3232

Agnew, C. (2018, February 21). Does Wednesbury Protect the Environment? – The Need for an Environmental Court; E-Law The Journal of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association, January/February 2018 (pages 26 to 30). Retrieved from https://www.westwateradvocates.com/wednesbury-protect-environment-need-environmental-court/

Last Updated: 29/3 5:33am

Image: Figure 1: Scottish judicial review cases initiated and disposed of between 2011-12 and 2020-21

Image: Figure 2: Scottish judicial review cases initiated by policy area between 2011-12 and 2020-21

Image: Figure 3: Judicial review and EU-derived domestic legislation

Image: Figure 4: Judicial review and direct EU legislation

An error occured while loading, please try again in a few minutes.