Judicial review reform – Government consultation

ClientEarth's submission to the UK government's judicial review reform consultation expresses strong opposition to proposals that would limit court discretion, introduce prospective-only remedies, or strengthen ouster clauses. The organization argues that such reforms could lead to non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. While supporting the removal of the 'promptitude requirement' and the introduction of a formal 'Reply step', ClientEarth cautions against a 'track' system for claims and the restriction of interveners. The document emphasizes that environmental litigation is a critical tool for public accountability and that any reform must be evidence-based and cumulative in its impact assessment.

• The UK government's consultation proposals exceed the recommendations of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) Panel and include measures the Panel explicitly cautioned against, such as reforms to bolster ouster clauses.
• Proposed 'prospective-only remedies' are criticized for potentially creating unjust outcomes for affected individuals and violating international obligations under the ECHR and the Aarhus Convention.
• ClientEarth opposes the use of a presumptive or mandatory approach for 'suspended quashing orders', arguing that courts must retain unfettered discretion to ensure effective remedies, especially in environmental and human rights cases.
• The government's attempt to give greater effect to ouster clauses is viewed as a threat to public accountability and a potential breach of the Aarhus Convention's requirements for review procedures.
• ClientEarth supports the removal of the 'promptitude requirement' for judicial review claims to increase legal certainty and align with a 2010 finding by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.
• The proposal to introduce a 'track' system for judicial review claims is rejected due to a lack of evidence regarding its efficiency and the risk of creating new procedural uncertainties.
• Proposed requirements to identify potential interveners at the start of litigation are seen as a potential 'chilling effect' that could limit the court's ability to hear valuable external perspectives.

APA

ClientEarth (2021). Judicial review reform – Government consultation. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ak2paof4/clientearth-judicial-review-reform-consultation-response-april-2021.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Judicial review reform – Government consultation. 2021. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ak2paof4/clientearth-judicial-review-reform-consultation-response-april-2021.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=Judicial review reform – Government consultation |date=April 2021 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/ak2paof4/clientearth-judicial-review-reform-consultation-response-april-2021.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2021judicial, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Judicial review reform – Government consultation}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2021}, month = apr, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/ak2paof4/clientearth-judicial-review-reform-consultation-response-april-2021.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }