Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1148889

	registered interest
	date	14/10/2019
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many cases of judicial review are active in UK courts to which her Department is a party.
	tabling member constituency	Birkenhead
	tabling member printed	Frank Field
	uin	54
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/10/2019 answer text <p>As at 16 October 2019, there are 29 judicial reviews active in the UK courts to which the Department is a party.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Eastleigh answering member printed Mims Davies question first answered 17/10/2019 14:54:45 answering member 4513 label Biography information for Mims Davies
	tabling member	478 label Biography information for Lord Field of Birkenhead

1341325

	registered interest
	date	28/06/2021
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much her Department has spent from the public purse on contesting court cases in each of the last three years.
	tabling member constituency	Stalybridge and Hyde
	tabling member printed	Jonathan Reynolds
	uin	23183
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/07/2021 answer text <p>The Department does not keep this information centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate costs.</p> answering member constituency Hexham answering member printed Guy Opperman question first answered 01/07/2021 15:42:22 answering member 4142 label Biography information for Guy Opperman
	tabling member	4119 label Biography information for Jonathan Reynolds

100203

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against his Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211303
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>The following table shows the number of judicial review cases brought against the Department and Public Health England (PHE) since 2010. Until 2013, information was not held centrally on whether the decisions challenged in these applications were upheld.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Department of Health</p></td><td><p>Public Health England (an executive agency of the Department)</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Number of applications for judicial review made during year</p></td><td><p>Number of applications for judicial review made during year</p></td><td><p>Number of applications upheld during year</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>1*</p></td><td><p>2**</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>11 to date</p></td><td><p>0 to date</p></td><td><p>0 to date</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>*This application was made prior to 31 March 2013, before the formation of PHE.</p><p> </p><p>** These were successful challenges against decisions of the Department of Health, the two applications were joined and dealt with together.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 24/10/2014 12:25:27 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

425147

	registered interest
	date	30/10/2015
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) search and (b) surveillance warrants issued by a judge have been subject to judicial review in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Haltemprice and Howden
	tabling member printed	Mr David Davis
	uin	14186
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/11/2015 answer text <p>Figures on the numbers of search warrants and surveillance authorisations subject to judicial review are not held centrally.</p> answering member constituency South Holland and The Deepings answering member printed Mr John Hayes question first answered 10/11/2015 17:00:35 answering member 350 label Biography information for Sir John Hayes previous answer version 27749 answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
	tabling member	373 label Biography information for Sir David Davis

1378934

	registered interest
	date	16/11/2021
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many judicial review proceedings there are in respect of her Department; and if she will provide a breakdown of the number of judicial reviews being heard in (a) England and Wales's Upper Tribunal, (b) Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session and (c) Northern Ireland's High Court.
	tabling member constituency	North Down
	tabling member printed	Stephen Farry
	uin	76046
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2021 answer text <p>The total number of cases as a breakdown of cases in different courts is not held centrally for England and Wales</p><p>In relation to Scotland there are 95 active Home Office judicial review cases in the Outer House of the Court of Session.</p><p>In relation to Northern Ireland there are 46 active Home Office judicial review cases.</p> answering member constituency North West Hampshire answering member printed Kit Malthouse question first answered 24/11/2021 17:23:24 answering member 4495 label Biography information for Kit Malthouse
	tabling member	4856 label Biography information for Stephen Farry

100213

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against her Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211302
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>No central records are kept of the number of judicial reviews successfully brought against the department since 2010 and it would incur disproportionate cost to try to acquire this information.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Staffordshire Moorlands answering member printed Karen Bradley question first answered 24/10/2014 16:02:04 answering member 4110 label Biography information for Dame Karen Bradley previous answer version 24146 answering member constituency Staffordshire Moorlands answering member printed Karen Bradley answering member 4110 label Biography information for Dame Karen Bradley
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169009

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 72, what the evidential basis was for his statement that minor technicalities in process have been used as an excuse to bring judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217848
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/01/2015 answer text <p>The Government accepts that failures of procedure can amount to substantive unlawfulness, and that judicial review is a crucial mechanism by which such unlawfulness is considered and remedied by the court.</p><p> </p><p>However, we are concerned by the continuing potential for a judicial review to be brought on minor technical points which could not have, or which were highly unlikely to have, substantially affected the outcome for the applicant.</p><p> </p><p>The potential for this type of challenge has been recognised by the courts, which have developed an approach in case law under which, if the outcome would inevitably have been the same even if the alleged defect had not occurred, the court can refuse the remedy sought – see, for example, <em>R v The Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, ex parte Cotton</em> [1990] IRLR 344.</p><p> </p><p>However, in the Government’s view the ‘inevitable’ threshold is too high to deal effectively with claims brought on minor technical points. Consequently, in clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (as introduced into the House of Lords), the Government is legislating to provide for a ‘highly likely’ threshold.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 19/01/2015 16:59:01 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

100225

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many judicial review cases his Department has unsuccessfully intervened since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211304
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>The purpose of an intervention in a judicial review should be to help the court decide the case.</p><p>Details of interventions made by this department since 2010 are not held centrally.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Bermondsey and Old Southwark answering member printed Simon Hughes question first answered 24/10/2014 13:43:52 answering member 194 label Biography information for Simon Hughes
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

58436

	registered interest
	date	05/06/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the new judicial review regulations on people who are fighting eviction or the repossession of a house.
	tabling member constituency	Bolton North East
	tabling member printed	Mr David Crausby
	uin	199208
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/06/2014 answer text <p>Judicial review is an important way of challenging decisions by public authorities and will remain so. The recently amended regulations do not prevent people receiving legal aid in judicial review cases.</p><p> </p><p>The Government's policy is that limited legal aid resources should be targeted at those judicial review cases where they are needed most, if the legal aid system is to command public confidence and credibility. We amended the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to implement the proposal that legal aid providers should only be paid for work carried out on an application for permission if permission is given by the court, subject to a discretion to pay providers for work carried out on an application for permission in cases that conclude prior to a permission decision. The discretion is held by the Lord Chancellor but will be exercised by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The amendments took effect on 22 April 2014.</p><p> </p><p>An assessment of the impacts of this policy was published alongside the consultation response paper <em>Judicial Review: Proposals for Further Reform: the Government Response</em> and is available at <a title="blocked::https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review" href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review" target="_blank">https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review</a>. It is important to reiterate that no change has been made to the availability of civil legal aid to individuals or to eligibility for legal aid for judicial review proceedings. Where a client is in receipt of legal aid, he or she will remain so for the life of the case (unless it is withdrawn for other reasons). We consider that there will remain sufficient providers who undertake judicial review work, taking on cases which they consider to be of merit.</p><p> </p><p>The Government plans to undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within 3-5 years of implementation. The review will include an assessment of the impact of this change.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 12/06/2014 15:50:47 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	437 label Biography information for Sir David Crausby

100229

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against his Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211301
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>It has not been possible to access this information within the time limit but I will provide an answer in due course.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 24/10/2014 11:58:57 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

168350

	registered interest
	date	05/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his contribution of 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 72, on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, what estimate he has made of the number of applications for judicial review which were granted on minor technicalities since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217565
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government has not made an estimate of the number of applications for judicial review which are granted on procedural defects or minor technicalities. Judicial review applications are not recorded in an accessible and reliable electronic form, but rather in paper case files which would need to be manually searched and as such there is no central figure. However, those involved in judicial reviews, including government departments, local authorities and businesses, are fully aware of the ways in which the judicial review process can be misused.</p><p>One of the reforms we are taking forward in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (clause 84 of the print of the Bill currently awaiting Royal Assent) is to improve the way the courts deal with judicial reviews based on procedural defects. This is an important part of the Government’s programme to tackle public burdens, promote growth and stimulate economic recovery.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 10/02/2015 17:40:55 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169008

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 73, on how many occasions in the last two years each government department has been threatened with judicial review; and in each such case, whether judicial review proceedings were subsequently (a) launched and (b) successful.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217847
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/12/2014 answer text <p>This information is not available. A ‘threat’ of judicial review could range for example from a pre-action letter sent to a central government department to an oral suggestion made at a stakeholder meeting.</p><p> </p><p>It is crucial that judicial review continues to hold public authorities to account for the right reasons. The Government’s reforms strike a fair and sensible balance between limiting the potential for the abuse of judicial review and protecting its vital role as a check on public authorities.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 15/12/2014 15:27:53 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169010

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 71, what assessment he has made of when and how the system of judicial review ceased to be based on common sense.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217849
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/12/2014 answer text <p>The Government has always been clear that judicial review, when used properly, can be a crucial component of the rule of law.</p><p> </p><p>But in the Government’s view, too often the system is open to abuse, and the common sense reforms, which, following two consultations, the Government has implemented and is seeking to implement, are needed to rebalance the system of judicial review.</p><p> </p><p>In the Government’s view, for example, the creation of a Planning Court, with the assistance of the judiciary, to speed up the consideration of challenges to key projects, is a common sense reform. That reform is now delivering significant improvements. The available evidence suggests planning judicial reviews are now significantly quicker as a result of the reforms which followed the first consultation and the introduction of the Planning Court in April 2014, which followed the second consultation. For those which reach a substantive hearing (i.e. excluding those refused permission or otherwise determined earlier in the process) the average time fell by around 30% from 54 weeks in the 12 months to April 2013 to 39 weeks in the 12 months to September 2014. This is a substantial improvement in advance of the rest of the reforms taking effect.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 17/12/2014 14:02:29 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

172602

	registered interest
	date	07/01/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what amount his Department has spent on legal fees in judicial review cases in which it was found to have acted unlawfully since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	220082
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/01/2015 answer text <p>The Department does not keep a central record of the legal spend and the outcome in every judicial review brought against it or its associated bodies.</p><p> </p><p>To bring together the information sought would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 12/01/2015 17:46:03 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1122776

	registered interest
	date	24/04/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average timescale is for the conclusion of a judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Bethnal Green and Bow
	tabling member printed	Rushanara Ali
	uin	247071
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/05/2019 answer text <p>From January to December 2018 the average clearance time for a Judicial Review in the Administrative Court, from lodgement to a final hearing decision was 167 days. The published data is available at the following link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-october-to-december-2018" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-october-to-december-2018</a></p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 02/05/2019 15:55:20 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
	tabling member	4138 label Biography information for Rushanara Ali

1330290

	registered interest
	date	07/06/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to reform judicial review.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
	uin	HL793
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/06/2021 answer text <p>The Independent Review of Administrative Law made recommendations for reform and the Government consulted on these and other proposals. We are considering the responses to the consultation before deciding on the measures to take forward but the Government will introduce legislation in the current session.</p> answering member printed Lord Wolfson of Tredegar question first answered 21/06/2021 15:41:24 answering member 4901 label Biography information for Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
	tabling member	4130 label Biography information for Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

1180656

	registered interest
	date	25/02/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government how many judicial reviews were conducted in England and Wales in each year from 1990 to 2019.
	tabling member printed	Lord Patten
	uin	HL1884
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/03/2020 answer text <p>The table sets out the number of judicial reviews that were conducted in the High Court (Administrative Court) of England and Wales each year between 1999- Q3 2019. These are substantive hearings, and not applications for permission to apply for judicial review. They include all outcomes, including the substantive decision of ‘withdraw’. Unfortunately, statistics from before this time were unobtainable in the time available. Data for Q4 2019 is due to be published on 5th March 2020.</p><p>The table also includes the number of judicial review disposals in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) Chamber from 2013 (when cases started to be heard there) and until Q3 2019. Importantly, this statistic includes all applications for permission to apply for judicial review, and not just the substantive hearings in stark contrast to the above number quoted for the Administrative Court, which only accounts for substantive hearings. The figures cannot be broken down into hearings conducted in the time available.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court)</p></td><td><p>Judicial reviews in the UTIAC (Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Substantive cases heard</p></td><td><p>Disposals (inc.applications rejected)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>1999</p></td><td><p>1,117</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2000</p></td><td><p>1,207</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2001</p></td><td><p>729</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2002</p></td><td><p>420</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2003</p></td><td><p>420</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2004</p></td><td><p>334</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2005</p></td><td><p>392</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2006</p></td><td><p>461</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2007</p></td><td><p>421</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2008</p></td><td><p>419</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2009</p></td><td><p>488</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>477</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>485</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>541</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>546</p></td><td><p>329</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>392</p></td><td><p>12,708</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>374</p></td><td><p>18,788</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>331</p></td><td><p>15,012</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>315</p></td><td><p>11,488</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>219</p></td><td><p>9,971</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2019 Q1-Q3</p></td><td><p>57</p></td><td><p>6,529</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>TOTAL</p></td><td><p>10,145</p></td><td><p>74,825</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Keen of Elie question first answered 10/03/2020 17:47:57 answering member 4538 label Biography information for Lord Keen of Elie
	tabling member	1137 label Biography information for Lord Patten

1379858

	registered interest
	date	18/11/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress he has made in reforming the law of judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Hendon
	tabling member printed	Dr Matthew Offord
	uin	77416
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/11/2021 answer text <p>The Judicial Review and Courts Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill creates new powers for the courts to modify quashing orders in Judicial Review proceedings and improves the flexibility of the courts to provide proportionate remedies, increasing the tools in their toolbox.</p><p> </p><p>Specifically, the power to suspend a quashing order allows the courts to give time for transitional arrangements to be made, or give Parliament the opportunity to pass legislation in response to a decision to quash.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill also allows for the retrospective effect of quashing orders to be removed or limited. This measure allows the court to protect third parties that have relied on decisions in the past, and whose legal position may be compromised if that decision is quashed retrospectively.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, the Bill removes <em>Cart</em> judicial reviews, by way of a narrow and carefully worded ouster clause. We want to remove <em>Cart </em>reviews because the situation is, in the Government’s firm view, a disproportionate use of resources in our justice system. Out of around 750 applications a year only 3.4% are successful, and these cases take up around 180 days of precious judicial resource a year.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill finished its Commons Committee stage on 23 November.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 26/11/2021 14:58:10 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
	tabling member	4006 label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord

1379020

	registered interest
	date	16/11/2021
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the oral contribution by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice of 9 November 2021, Official Report , column 160, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of Cart-type judicial review cases on the Crown Court backlog.
	tabling member constituency	Tottenham
	tabling member printed	Mr David Lammy
	uin	75806
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/11/2021 answer text <p>In the oral contribution by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice to which he refers, the PUS refers to the ‘precious resource’ of High Court Judges. As it states on judiciary.uk: ‘High Court judges can hear the most serious and sensitive cases in the Crown Court (for example murder)’. Our impact assessment sets out the Cart judicial review measure will save 172-180 judge days per year in the High Court and Upper Tribunal. A High Court Judge, who would otherwise be devoting time to considering Cart judicial review, may therefore instead devote that time to considering other serious cases in the Crown Court.</p><p> </p><p>We continue to take action to tackle the impact the pandemic has had on our criminal justice system, including Crown Court backlog.</p><p> </p><p>The Judicial Review and Courts Bill provides the Crown Court with increased flexibility to return certain cases to the magistrates’ court, helping support court recovery by saving an estimated 400 Crown Court sitting days per year.</p><p> </p><p>We have allocated over a quarter of a billion pounds on recovery in the last financial year, making court buildings safe, rolling out new technology for remote hearings, recruiting additional staff and opening Nightingale courtrooms, including retaining 32 Nightingale Court rooms until the end of March 2022.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice’s Spending Review settlement provides £477 million to improve waiting times for victims and to reduce Crown Court backlogs caused by the pandemic.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 23/11/2021 16:48:41 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
	tabling member	206 label Biography information for Mr David Lammy

435998

	registered interest
	date	02/12/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to reform judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Edmonton
	tabling member printed	Kate Osamor
	uin	902611
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/12/2015 answer text <p>The government has always been clear that judicial review, when used properly, is a crucial component of the rule of law.</p><p>But too often the system is open to abuse. That is why we have taken forward reform, such as the creation of the Planning Court, which we have implemented with the assistance of the judiciary, and the changes in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which we are implementing. The reforms will speed up the process for people who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put.</p> answering member constituency Esher and Walton answering member printed Dominic Raab question first answered 08/12/2015 16:47:10 answering member 4007 label Biography information for Dominic Raab
	tabling member	4515 label Biography information for Kate Osamor

1183079

	registered interest
	date	05/03/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the oral contribution of the Attorney General of 16 January 2020, Official Report, columns 1143-1144, what plans he has for a review into the judicial review process; who will lead that review; what his timetable is for that review; whether that review will be conducted as part of the Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission; and how he plans to consult (a) Members and (b) the public.
	tabling member constituency	Brighton, Pavilion
	tabling member printed	Caroline Lucas
	uin	25645
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/03/2020 answer text <p>As set out in our manifesto, the Government will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.</p><p> </p><p>Discussions on how to meet this commitment are continuing within Government and further details will be announced in due course.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 12/03/2020 14:05:25 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	3930 label Biography information for Caroline Lucas

1259654

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to any published criteria or guidance including, but not limited to, the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2020 and Practice Direction 54E (Planning Court Claims), what the process is for the allocation of cases identified as Aarhus Convention claims in Form N461 to judges in the Planning and Administrative Courts; and if he will make a statement.
	tabling member constituency	Bristol East
	tabling member printed	Kerry McCarthy
	uin	127495
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/12/2020 answer text <p>Judges dealing with Planning Court cases are authorised to do so by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, based on their experience and expertise in dealing with such matters. Cases requiring planning expertise are allocated to an available Planning Court Judge.</p> answering member constituency Croydon South answering member printed Chris Philp question first answered 18/12/2020 14:00:17 answering member 4503 label Biography information for Chris Philp
	tabling member	1491 label Biography information for Kerry McCarthy

177246

	registered interest
	date	28/01/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Government is taking to uphold the constitutional importance of judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Middlesbrough
	tabling member printed	Andy McDonald
	uin	907383
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The Government’s reforms to judicial review provide a more balanced and practicable approach that will ensure cases with merit can proceed quickly through to resolution and unmeritorious claims which abuse the system and cause unnecessary delays are filtered out at the earliest opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>There is nothing in the reform package which undermines the constitutional role of judicial review as a vital check on the State.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 03/02/2015 17:33:17 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
	tabling member	4269 label Biography information for Andy McDonald

1230719

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who the independent panel considering judicial review will be consulting with.
	tabling member constituency	East Lothian
	tabling member printed	Kenny MacAskill
	uin	84356
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/09/2020 answer text <p>The Independent Panel on Administrative Law commenced its work in July 2020 which is expected to run until the end of the year. The panel intends to gather evidence from a wide range of interested and representative parties including legal bodies, academia, professional associations, trade bodies, as well as from those who act for claimants and those who defend judicial reviews, amongst others. This will be a time limited exercise and anyone who wishes to submit comments or evidence may do so before the 19 October 2020. Details for how to submit are available on GOV.UK. A copy of the call for evidence will be deposited in the libraries of both Houses.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 84357 question first answered 07/09/2020 17:48:05 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	4772 label Biography information for Kenny MacAskill

1230720

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the planned timescale is for the consultation period of the independent panel to look at judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	East Lothian
	tabling member printed	Kenny MacAskill
	uin	84357
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/09/2020 answer text <p>The Independent Panel on Administrative Law commenced its work in July 2020 which is expected to run until the end of the year. The panel intends to gather evidence from a wide range of interested and representative parties including legal bodies, academia, professional associations, trade bodies, as well as from those who act for claimants and those who defend judicial reviews, amongst others. This will be a time limited exercise and anyone who wishes to submit comments or evidence may do so before the 19 October 2020. Details for how to submit are available on GOV.UK. A copy of the call for evidence will be deposited in the libraries of both Houses.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk grouped question UIN 84356 question first answered 07/09/2020 17:48:05 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	4772 label Biography information for Kenny MacAskill

1230722

	registered interest
	date	02/09/2020
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he had with representatives of the judiciary in England and Wales ahead of the announcement of the launch of the independent panel to look at judicial review on 31 July 2020.
	tabling member constituency	East Lothian
	tabling member printed	Kenny MacAskill
	uin	84358
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/09/2020 answer text <p>The Lord Chancellor meets regularly with senior judges in England and Wales to discuss matters related to the administration of the justice system and the courts and tribunals.</p> answering member constituency Cheltenham answering member printed Alex Chalk question first answered 07/09/2020 17:48:16 answering member 4481 label Biography information for Alex Chalk
	tabling member	4772 label Biography information for Kenny MacAskill