Public interest judicial review in cross-border perspective

Tools

McCorkindale, Christopher and Scott, Paul (2015) Public interest judicial review in cross-border perspective. King's Law Journal, 26 (3). pp. 412-439. ISSN 1757-8442 (https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2015.1071532)

[thumbnail of McCorkindale-Scott-KLJ-2015-Public-interest-judicial-review-in-cross]
Preview
 Text. Filename: McCorkindale_Scott_KLJ_2015_Public_interest_judicial_review_in_cross.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
Download (454kB)| Preview

Abstract

This paper assesses challenges in England and in Scotland to the ‘public interest conception’ of judicial review according to which judicial review is intended primarily to promote the public, rather than private, interest. It shows that though recent decades have seen the public interest conception of judicial review in the ascendency south of the border, there has been in the recent past a changing of the tide: the public interest conception of judicial review has been chipped away by legislative developments which reject the premise upon which it is based – largely by implementing procedural rules which are in significant tension with it. In Scotland, on the other hand, the courts have shown less enthusiasm for that conception, with many of the procedural rules and developments which reflect it having been resisted by the Scottish judiciary or acceded to only belatedly and with some reluctance. On the basis of a consideration of the issues of standing, protective costs orders and third party interventions, it shows that, though the conception of judicial review which sees it primarily as a tool by which the public interest can be pursued and protected is in poor health on both sides of the border, the details of, and reasons for that conclusion, differ in interesting ways.

ORCID iDs

McCorkindale, Christopher ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8285-0791 and Scott, Paul;
  • Item type:Article
    ID code:54709
    Dates:
    Date
    Event
    9 December 2015
    Published
    9 December 2015
    Published Online
    30 July 2015
    Accepted
    Notes:This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in King's Law Journal in 2015, available online: http://wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09615768.2015.1071532
    Subjects:Law
    Department:Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (HaSS) > Strathclyde Law School > Law
    Depositing user: Pure Administrator
    Date deposited:11 Dec 2015 01:17
    Last modified:11 Nov 2024 11:13
    URI:https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/id/eprint/54709
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)