Government announces plans to launch planning court in 'radical' shake-up of UK justice system
The Ministry of Justice is considering the establishment of a specialist planning court to speed up the review process for large-scale infrastructure projects, as part of a "radical" set of proposals to reform public law and speed up the economic recovery. An eight-week consultation on a raft of proposed changes to the judicial review system was announced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling (pictured) last week, including a separate 'planning chamber' staffed by expert judges; a tighter timeframe for applications; only allowing people with a direct interest in cases to apply for judicial review; and changing the rules around who has to pay legal costs so applicants foot part of the bill.
September 12, 2013 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
Opinions split over justice secretary's vision of special planning court for large-scale building projects
The Ministry of Justice is considering the establishment of a specialist planning court to speed up the review process for large-scale infrastructure projects, as part of a "radical" set of proposals to reform public law and speed up the economic recovery.
An eight-week consultation on a raft of proposed changes to the judicial review system was announced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling (pictured) last week, including a separate 'planning chamber' staffed by expert judges; a tighter timeframe for applications; only allowing people with a direct interest in cases to apply for judicial review; and changing the rules around who has to pay legal costs so applicants foot part of the bill.
SJ Berwin London real estate head Simon Ricketts said: "It's the most radical set of public law reforms I've ever seen from a UK government and will be a significant root-and-branch shake-up of the judicial review process.
"Set out individually, most of the changes are very sensible or are heading along the right lines, but there are some elements which will be no doubt controversial.
"I wouldn't want to see the baby being thrown out with the bathwater because of controversy over the more radical proposals."
These proposed prohibitions on groups applying for judicial reviews – which could extend so far as banning objections from local authorities and pressure groups, such as the High Speed 2 protest group HS2 Action Alliance – have raised fears that the proposals could be challenged under human rights legislation.
However, planning lawyers have welcomed the proposal to have specialist judges sitting in specialist courts.
"It's a good thing that they will have specialist judges that understand the planning system," said Marnix Elsenaar, head of planning at Addleshaw Goddard. "That will change the process and get things done more quickly."
Nigel Hewitson, head of planning at Norton Rose Fulbright, added: "Having that specialist understanding has got to save time in terms of barristers not having to explain the background to cases."
Martin Evans, head of planning at Nabarro, also welcomed the proposals, but said there was still room for improvement: "There is legislation in place where if you have a full planning permission and there is a judicial review, you get an extra year on the deadline for implementation, and that doesn't exist on outline applications. That's an anomaly and should be corrected."
These proposals follow changes in July that stopped people from having a 'second chance' hearing if their initial written application was ruled totally without merit by a judge, as well as cutting the time limit for applying for reviews of planning decisions from three months to six weeks.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBird & Bird Steers Katjes in Bittersweet Dispute with Lindt & Nestlé Over Vegan Chocolate Patent
Hong Kong Bourse Seeks Feedback on IPO Price Discovery, Takes Steps to Boost Capital Markets Activity
Big Four Japanese Firm Mori Hamada Launches Foreign Joint Law Enterprise, Joins Rebrand Drive
US Wins Trade Dispute with Mexico Over Genetically Modified Corn
Trending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250