Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 64 — Rejection of Judicial Review Application If No Substantially Different Outcome Likely — Allow or Require — 1 Dec 2014 at 19:00

The majority of MPs voted to require, rather than merely allow, an application for judicial review to be refused if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.

The intent was explained by Chris Grayling MP^[1] in the debate as being to prevent judicial reviews into technicalities.

MPs were considering the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill^[2]. The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97

Lords amendment 97^[3] stated:

• Page 64, line 35, leave out “must” and insert “may”

The amendment affected Clause 64 of the Bill^[4] titled Likelihood of substantially different outcome for applicant. The impacted element sought add to Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which relates to applications to the High Court for judicial reviews and the powers of the court to subsequently make declarations, grant injunctions and award the applicant damages, restitution or the recovery of a sum due.

• The High Court—
• (a) must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review, and
• (b) may not make an award under subsection (4) on such an application,
• if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.”

Subsection 4 deals with awards of damages or restitution or the recovery of a sum due.

• [1] Grayling MP, (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative), House of Commons 1 December 2014
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
• [3] Amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 97
• [4] Clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill as at the time of the vote

Debate in Parliament | Source |