DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Review Reform the Government Response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Review Reform the Government Response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law Judicial Review Reform The Government Response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law Date of publication: March 2021 CP 408 Judicial Review Reform The Government Response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty March 2021 CP 408 © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-2477-0 CCS0321152500 03/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office About this consultation Duration: 18/03/21 to 29/04/2021 Enquiries (including Judicial Review Reform requests for the paper in an Ministry of Justice alternative format) to: 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Email: [email protected] How to respond: Please send your response by 29/04/2021 by using the online portal: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/judicial-review- reform/judicial-review-proposals-for-reform By mail to: Judicial Review Reform Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Or by email to [email protected] Additional ways to feed in A series of webinars is also taking place. For further your views: information please use the “Enquiries” contact details above Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published by summer 2021 at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Page 5 of 60 Page 6 of 60 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10 The Independent Review of Administrative Law’s recommendations ............................... 10 Further proposals ............................................................................................................ 11 2. The Constitution and Judicial Review ........................................................................... 13 3. Targeted incremental change....................................................................................... 19 4. The Independent Review of Administrative Law’s recommendations ........................... 24 Reversing Cart ................................................................................................................ 24 Suspended quashing orders ............................................................................................ 25 5. Additional proposals for consultation ............................................................................ 28 Remedies ........................................................................................................................ 28 Ouster clauses ................................................................................................................ 38 6. Procedural reform ........................................................................................................ 43 7. Economic impacts ........................................................................................................ 47 8. Equalities impacts ........................................................................................................ 49 9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 51 10. Summary of consultation questions .......................................................................... 52 11. Contact details/How to respond ................................................................................ 55 Page 7 of 60 Foreword 1. We are implementing our Manifesto commitment to “ensure that Judicial Review is available to protect the rights of the individual against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.” The Independent Review of Administrative Law conducted by a panel of experts (the Panel) chaired by Lord Faulks QC was the first step. They have delivered a well-researched and closely argued Report which reflects the diversity of views on Judicial Review. I am very grateful to Lord Faulks and his colleagues for an impressive piece of work undertaken to a tight timetable. 2. The Panel’s analysis identified a growing tendency for the courts in Judicial Review cases to edge away from a strictly supervisory jurisdiction, becoming more willing to review the merits of the decisions themselves, instead of the way in which those decisions were made. The reasoning of decision-makers has been replaced, in essence, with that of the court. We should strive to create and uphold a system which avoids drawing the courts into deciding on merit or moral values issues which lie more appropriately with the executive or Parliament. 3. The Panel proposed two reforms to substantive law: to reverse the effects of the Cart judgment and to introduce suspended quashing orders as a new remedy. I agree with these proposals. I am also interested in exploring proposals beyond these, specifically on ouster clauses more generally, and further reforms to remedies, including a prospective quashing order and clarifying the principles which determine how the courts declare decisions null and void, and having never occurred (the principle of nullity). While expanding on the logic and reasoning of the Panel, these additional proposals are in the early stages of development. Nevertheless, at this point I think it is worthwhile to consult on them so we can take into account what I believe will be a very diverse range of views and ideas. 4. In pursuing the Review’s recommendations, and in proposing additional reforms, my aim as Lord Chancellor is twofold. Firstly, I want to use these reforms to restore the place of justice at the heart of our society by ensuring that all the institutions of the state act together in their appropriate capacity to uphold the Rule of Law. That means affirming the role of the courts as ‘servants of Page 8 of 60 Parliament’, affirming the role of Parliament in creating law and holding the executive to account, and affirming that the executive should be confident in being able to use the discretion given to it by Parliament. 5. Secondly, I want to preserve the fairness that is inherent in our justice system, a fairness that protects the rights of citizens in challenging government or other public bodies and which affords them appropriate remedy. This means ensuring that the courts have available to them a flexible range of remedies, allowing cases to be resolved in a manner which is sensitive both to the rights of individual citizens and to the wider public interest. 6. I believe that the complexities inherent in Judicial Review, and in other constitutional areas, mean an iterative approach to reform is most appropriate. The Panel said in their Report that the Government should think carefully before introducing reforms. That is why I want to focus attention first on the most pressing issues, namely ouster clauses and remedies, before considering whether any broader reforms are necessary. At present, I intend these reforms to apply to one reserved matter (our proposal on Cart), and the jurisdiction of England and Wales only, but I am also concerned about the risks of fragmenting the legal jurisdictions of the UK. These reforms must act to strengthen the Union and I am very interested in views from across the United Kingdom. Bringing in views from all sides of the debate is essential in making sure our reforms are the right ones and I look forward to reading and listening to contributions to this consultation. Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Page 9 of 60 1. Introduction 7. The Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’) was established on the 31st July 2020 to examine trends in Judicial Review and to deliberate on any recommendations for reform. The Terms of Reference for the Review sought to direct the Panel’s attention to certain key areas: codification, non- justiciability, the grounds of review and remedies, and procedure. The focus on these areas is reflected in the structure of the Review’s Report (‘the Report’) and the Panel have made convincing recommendations on each area. This Consultation Document is intended to complement the analysis presented throughout the Report. While not all the issues covered in the Report have been taken forward to this consultation, readers are encouraged to read it in its entirety. The Report can be found on GOV.UK, along with evidence submitted to the Review. 8. The amount of attention the Review attracted and the wealth of evidence provided in response to the call for evidence was extremely useful to both the Panel’s and the Government’s deliberations. The call for evidence ran from the 7th September to the 26th October and asked respondents questions based on the terms of reference. There were 238 responses from a wide variety of organisations and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule is correct as at 12 May 2015.2 The delegations are currently subject to review by the Lord Chief Justice and a revised schedule will be published later in 2015. 1 See Interpretation Act 1978, section 13. 2 The LCJ has on three occasions suspended various delegations in order to make specific Practice Directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2010 Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts Carrie Menkel-Meadow Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Bryant Garth Southwestern Law School, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/181 Carrie Menkel-Meadow & Bryant Garth, Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts, in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, eds., forthcoming). This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Courts Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Litigation Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 10-04 January 2010 Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts in OXFORD HANDBOOK OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL RESEARCH (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, eds., forthcoming) Carrie Menkel-Meadow Bryant Garth Professor of Law Dean, Southwestern Law School Georgetown University Law Center Director, American Bar Foundation [email protected] [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/181 SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537448 Posted with permission of the author Process, People, Power and Policy: Empirical Studies of Civil Procedure and Courts Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Bryant Garth For Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, editors, Oxford University Press) I.
    [Show full text]
  • New Supreme Court Opens — the Constitutional Leap- Forward
    New Supreme Court opens — the constitutional leap- forward 23 OCTOBER 2009 Christopher Coffin CONSULTANT | UK CATEGORY: ARTICLE From 1 October 2009 the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has replaced the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the land and nal appellate court for civil and criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and civil cases only in Scotland. The Supreme Court has also taken from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council its jurisdiction over devolution issues. Political theorists have hailed this a great constitutional leap forward to a true separation of powers, with the formal division of the judiciary from the legislature. For most legal practitioners the most immediate impact of this constitutional innovation is far more mundane. We have had two supreme courts in this country for many years: the Supreme Court of England & Wales, created in the 1870s, and the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, created in 1978. These were, however, virtual courts being merely the collective names for the High Court, Court of Appeal and Crown Court in each jurisdiction; but the name appeared in court rules, statutes and many ofcial titles, including that of a solicitor — ofcial title: ‘Solicitor of the Supreme Court’. Now we have an actual Supreme Court, a host of name changes in statute and rules has had to be implemented. Surprisingly, there was some confusion at rst as ofcial statements indicated that only new solicitors would acquire the new ofcial title. However, it is now clear that no solicitor is ‘supreme’ any more — all are now ‘senior’.
    [Show full text]
  • 15. Judicial Review
    15. Judicial Review Contents Summary 413 A common law principle 414 Judicial review in Australia 416 Protections from statutory encroachment 417 Australian Constitution 417 Principle of legality 420 International law 422 Bills of rights 422 Justifications for limits on judicial review 422 Laws that restrict access to the courts 423 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 423 General corporate regulation 426 Taxation 427 Other issues 427 Conclusion 428 Summary 15.1 Access to the courts to challenge administrative action is an important common law right. Judicial review of administrative action is about setting the boundaries of government power.1 It is about ensuring government officials obey the law and act within their prescribed powers.2 15.2 This chapter discusses access to the courts to challenge administrative action or decision making.3 It is about judicial review, rather than merits review by administrators or tribunals. It does not focus on judicial review of primary legislation 1 ‘The position and constitution of the judicature could not be considered accidental to the institution of federalism: for upon the judicature rested the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which government power might be exercised and upon that the whole system was constructed’: R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 276 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ). 2 ‘The reservation to this Court by the Constitution of the jurisdiction in all matters in which the named constitutional writs or an injunction are sought against an officer of the Commonwealth is a means of assuring to all people affected that officers of the Commonwealth obey the law and neither exceed nor neglect any jurisdiction which the law confers on them’: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, [104] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for Unrepresented Claimants in Upper Tribunal Immigration And
    THE HON MRJUSTICE BLAKE PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL, IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Presidential Guidance Note 2013 No 3: GUIDE FOR UNREPRESENTED CLAIMANTS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER SEPTEMBER 2013 1 Contents Foreword p.3 1. Introduction: key points to bear in mind p.4-5 2. Applying to the First-tier Tribunal for Permission to Appeal to the p.6-7 Upper Tribunal 3. Re-applying to the Upper Tribunal for Permission to Appeal p.8-9 4. What happens after permission to appeal has been granted p.10-12 5. The appeal hearing p.13-16 6. Sponsor as Representative p.17 7. “McKenzie friend” p.18 8. Application to the Court of Appeal for Permission to Appeal p.19-21 Words and Phrases used in the Upper Tribunal p.22-24 Appendix One- Form IA FT4 p.25-28 Appendix Two- Form IAUT-1 p.29-35 Appendix Three-Form N161 & Form 40.2 p.36-46 Appendix Four-Practical Guidance “McKenzie Friends” p.47-53 Appendix Five-Practice Statements Immigration and Asylum Chambers of p.54-64 the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal Appendix Six- Sample Directions p.65-69 2 Foreword All courts and tribunals throughout the country recognise the rights of the parties to represent themselves in a case that involves them. We are aware that a person may be unfamiliar with the procedures and this Guide is designed to help them. The Guide1 deals solely with the procedures of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal for appeals from the First-tier Tribunal.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion – Fission – Fusion Pre-Judicature Equity Jurisdiction In
    M Leeming, “Fusion-Fission-Fusion: Pre-Judicature Equity Jurisdiction in New South Wales 1824- 1972 in J Goldberg et al (eds), Equity and Law: Fusion and Fission (Cambridge UP 2019), 118-143. Fusion – Fission – Fusion Pre-Judicature Equity Jurisdiction in New South Wales 1824 - 1972 Mark Leeming* Introduction Here is a vivid account of the pre-Judicature Act system which prevailed in New South Wales at the end of the nineteenth century and its origins: To the litigant who sought damages before an Equity Judge, a grant of Probate before a Divorce Judge or an injunction before a Common Law Judge, there could be no remedy. He had come to the wrong Court, so it was said. He might well have enquired on what historical basis he could thus be denied justice. It cannot be questioned that the Court required specialization to function properly and that a case obviously falling within one jurisdiction ought not to be heard by a Judge sitting in another jurisdiction. Yet from this the fallacious extension was made that a Judge sitting in one jurisdiction could not in any circumstances hear a case which ought to have originated in another jurisdiction.1 The words are those of the distinguished Australian legal historian J.M. Bennett. There is no doubt that the jurisdictions at common law and in equity came to be treated in many respects as if they were separate courts, despite the failure of sustained efforts to create a separate equity court; despite it being clear that there was a single Supreme Court of New South Wales with full jurisdiction at common law and in equity; and despite efforts by its first Chief Justice, Sir Francis Forbes, in the opposite direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for a Gastric Band
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 6, No. 3; 2013 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising the English Court System - Time for a Gastric Band Graham S McBain1 1 Solicitor. MA (Cantab), LLB (Cantab), LLM (Harv). Open Scholar, Peterhouse, Cambridge. Fulbright Scholar, Harvard Law School. UK Correspondence: Graham S McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 11, 2013 Accepted: April 23, 2013 Online Published: August 30, 2013 doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v6n3p17 Abstract There is a lot in the newspapers these days about human obesity and its detrimental effect on human health - as well as on the health budget. Indeed, statistics suggest that one in five adults in the United Kingdom is now clinically obese. What applies to human beings can also apply to human institutions and it is asserted that our legal system is clinically obese. It needs a gastric band. Why is our legal system clinically obese ? First, the volume of English primary - and subordinate - legislation is growing exponentially 1 and, at this rate, it will start to become like that of the United States. Thus, it needs to be curtailed since the direct - and indirect - cost of all this is huge.2 Second, the present court system dates from the Victorian era and it creaks. Distinctly. In what way? There are too many obsolete courts; There are too many courts which - while not obsolete – should be merged with others; The court system is replete with anomalies and there are too many jurisdictional and procedural issues; The domestic court structure is a four tier system - when it should only be three tier; The complexity of the court system is such that it is not understood by lawyers -far less by the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • PLEASE NOTE This Is a Draft Paper Only and Should Not Be Cited Without
    PLEASE NOTE This is a draft paper only and should not be cited without the author’s express permission THE SHORT-TERM IMPACT OF THE >GLORIOUS REVOLUTION= ON THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM On February 14, 1689, The day after William and Mary were recognized by the Convention Parliament as King and Queen, the first members of their Privy Council were sworn in. And, during the following two to three weeks, all of the various high offices in the government and the royal household were filled. Most of the politically powerful posts went either to tories or to moderates. The tory Earl of Danby was made Lord President of the Council and another tory, the Earl of Nottingham was made Secretary of State for the Southern Department. The office of Lord Privy Seal was given to the Atrimming@ Marquess of Halifax, whom dedicated whigs had still not forgiven for his part in bringing about the disastrous defeat of the exclusion bill in the Lords= house eight years earlier. Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, who was named Principal Secretary of State, can really only be described as tilting towards the whigs at this time. But, at the Admiralty and the Treasury, both of which were put into commission, in each case a whig stalwart was named as the first commissioner--Lord Mordaunt and Arthur Herbert respectivelyBand also in each case a number of other leading whigs were named to the commission as well.i Whig lawyers, on the whole, did rather better than their lay fellow-partisans. Devonshire lawyer and Inner Temple Bencher Henry Pollexfen was immediately appointed Attorney- General, and his cousin, Middle Templar George Treby, Solicitor General.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the History of Common Law
    Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät Introduction to the History of Common Law Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät 29.09.2020 Seite 2 Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät Dillon, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, Boston 1894, p. 155 The expression, "the common law," is used in various senses: (a) sometimes in distinction from statute law; (b) sometimes in distinction from equity law c) sometimes in distinction from the Roman or civil law […] . I deal with the fact as it exists, which is that the common law is the basis of the laws of every state and territory of the union, with comparatively unimportant and gradually waning exceptions. And a most fortunate circumstance it is, that, divided as our territory is into so many states, each supreme within the limits of its power, a common and uniform general system of jurisprudence underlies and pervades them all; and this quite aside from the excellences of that system, concerning which I shall presently speak. My present point is this: That the mere fact that one and the same system of jurisprudence exists in all of the states, is of itself of vast importance, since it is a most powerful agency in promoting commercial, social, and intellectual intercourse, and in cementing the national unity”. 29.09.2020 Seite 3 Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät Common Law Civil law Not codified Law (exceptions: statutes) Codified law role of judges: higher judicial role of judges: lower judicial discretion discretion, set precedents No clear separation between public Separation
    [Show full text]
  • Lions Over the Throne - the Udicj Ial Revolution in English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 6 Article 8 Number 1 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1987 Lions Over The Throne - The udicJ ial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N. David Palmeter Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Palmeter, N. David (1987) "Lions Over The Throne - The udJ icial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol6/iss1/8 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lions Over the Throne - The Judicial Revolution in English Administrative Law, by Bernard Schwartz, New York and London: New York University Press, 1987 Pp. 210. Reviewed by N. David Palmeter* We learn more about our own laws when we undertake to compare them with those of another sovereign. - Justice San- dra Day O'Connor' In 1964, half a dozen years before Goldberg v. Kelly' began "a due process explosion" 3 in the United States, Ridge v. Baldwin4 be- gan a "natural justice explosion" in England. The story of this explo- sion - of this judicial revolution - is the story of the creation and development by common law judges of a system of judicial supervi- sion of administrative action that, in many ways, goes far beyond the system presently prevailing in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • English Law and Terminology
    English Law and Terminology. JUSTINE K. COLLINS Objectives. To provide a introductory insight into English law, legal system and legal culture. To illustrate the important aspects of English legal culture. Course Content. Week 1 Class 1: Exploring the Characteristics of Legal Language & Depicting what is English Common Law. (November 21st). Week 1 Class 2: Identifying and defining the Sources of English Common Law. (November 21st). Week 2 Class 1: Examining the English Court System. (November 28th). Week 2 Class 2: Analysis of Legal Personnel. (November 28th). Week 3 Class 1: A look at an English Trial System.. (December 12th). Week 3 Class 2: An Introduction to the English Pre-Trial Civil Procedure. (December 12th). Week 4 Class 1: Exploring English Constitutional Law. (December 19th). Week 4 Class 2: A look at English Legal History (legal transfer from England to the British Caribbean). (December 19th). The Characteristics of English Legal Language. Jargons- Specialised Language Argot- Esoteric use of words. Terms of Art- words with a definitive Words used by legal professionals to avoid long explanations (Blackacre, legal meaning. Whiteacre). Words or terms particular to persons Ordinary words can have different within the legal profession (tort). meanings in a legal context (party, suit, Instrument, consideration). Certain terms of art apply to the entire Traces of French and Latin influences body of law (claimant, defendant, meant that 3 languages were used in appeal). Others refers to specific areas legal expressions. Latin- obiter dicta, ratio decidendi & bona fide. French- of law (consideration, murder, trustee). laches, in lieu & per autre vie. What is Common Law? Historical Development of common Various meanings of common law.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice and the Defence of Rights in England and Wales: the Case Of
    Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales : the case of Equity Anne-Marie O’Connell To cite this version: Anne-Marie O’Connell. Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales : the case of Equity. Miroirs : Revue des civilisations anglophone, ibérique et ibéro-américaine, Université Toulouse 1 Capi- tole, Département des Langues et Civilisations, 2016, Médiateurs et Défenseurs de Droits en France et dans les mondes hispanique et anglophone, pp.50-65. hal-01325692 HAL Id: hal-01325692 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01325692 Submitted on 2 Jun 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 50 Anne-Marie O’CONNELL Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales : the case of Equity 51 Justice and the defence of rights in Abstract: England and Wales : the case of Equity As the legal system known as Common Law was developing in England, access to Anne-Marie O’Connell justice via the procedural writ system was abruptly limited by the 1258 Provisions University of Toulouse 1 Capitole of Oxford, which denied access to those litigants who could not fit in the existing claim forms and prevented judges from creating new ones.
    [Show full text]