Judicial Review and Courts Bill — Clause 1 — Quashing orders — 26 Apr 2022 at 14:15
The majority of MPs voted to allow courts quashing a decision by a public body to remove or limit any retrospective effect of the quashing.
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
- Page 1, leave out line 9
Had it not been rejected this would have impacted Clause 1 of the Bill, and removed subsection (b) from the following:
- (1) A quashing order may include provision—
- (a) for the quashing not to take effect until a date specified in the order, or
- (b) removing or limiting any retrospective effect of the quashing
The Explanatory Notes to the amendment stated:
- Amendment 1 removes new section 29A(1)(b), which was the subsection conferring the new power on the court to limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders
-  Parliament's webpage on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
-  Judicial Review and Courts Bill as brought from the Commons on 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill as brought from the Commons on 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
-  Lords amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, 7 April 2022, Parliament.uk
-  Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, 8 April 2022, Parliament.uk
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||289 (+2 tell)||0||0||80.4%|
|LDem||0||7 (+2 tell)||0||69.2%|