Judicial review: it's about time
At present, an application for a judicial review of a decision made by a public body must be made ‘promptly’ and within three months of that decision being taken in any event.
In a planning context, the apparent vagueness and uncertainty of this wording has resulted in a number of legal challenges involving a determination as to whether a claimant has indeed acted ‘promptly’ in bringing their claim to court. The point is important, as any unreasonable delay in that respect could result in the dismissal of the judicial review application, even if that is brought within the so-called three-month-long stop period.
In the light of this and overarching concerns over the delay to development schemes arising from the judicial review process, the government has now announced that it will introduce important changes to judicial review time periods in relation to planning and procurement decisions. These changes are likely to be introduced in summer 2013…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Shoosmiths briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Shoosmiths
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Shoosmiths
The Court of Appeal has found in favour of a business tenant and decided that a periodic tenancy had not been created in the intervening period.
Careful drafting is usually required for restrictive covenants to be enforceable, although Prophet plc v Huggett provides the exception to the rule.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Compliance and corporate governance codes for large financial institutions will undoubtedly include provisions to regulate high pay in the future
There’s more to the ABS model than attracting the man in the street and procuring external investment. Partners at the big corporate firms, take note…