Judicial Review - academic query

Steviesol

I would like to discuss the Judicial Review procedure in Ireland.

If someone wants to make a judicial review of a circuit family law decision. They have 3 months from the date of circuit Court order I believe.

Do all parties need to be served within those 3 months, or is it that it just has to be filed with high court within those 3 months.


I am trying to do a comparison to other jurisdictions.

Thanks

hullaballoo

Why are you seeking judicial review?

FishOnABike

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/3063165ff3ce457180258061003f84ed?OpenDocument
and
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument
might be good starting points for the rules governing judicial review.

The role of the judge in the original court proceedings is also worthy of discussion as they are not usually made a party to any judicial review proceedings
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/SuperiorAmdLookup/No84-S.I.+No.+345+Of+2015:+Rules+Of+The+Superior+Courts+(Judicial+Review)+2015
as is the significant effect this has on the recoverability (or not) of costs even when the application for judicial review is upheld.

This difficulty in recovering costs in turn has a knock on effect in the accessibility of redress by way of judicial review to anyone who does not have the substantial means to personally fund judicial review proceedings even in a case where their application would have significant merit.

4ensic15

Steviesol wrote: »

I would like to discuss the Judicial Review procedure in Ireland.

If someone wants to make a judicial review of a circuit family law decision. They have 3 months from the date of circuit Court order I believe.

Do all parties need to be served within those 3 months, or is it that it just has to be filed with high court within those 3 months.

The application for leave has to be made within 3 months. Papers have to be filed and an application made to a judge (although one judge has said that lodging papers is sufficient). The High Court, if it allows the leave application, will then direct service on the other parties within 7 days.

Steviesol

FishOnABike wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/Library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5180256e3f003a4580/3063165ff3ce457180258061003f84ed?OpenDocument
and
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument
might be good starting points for the rules governing judicial review.

The role of the judge in the original court proceedings is also worthy of discussion as they are not usually made a party to any judicial review proceedings
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/SuperiorAmdLookup/No84-S.I.+No.+345+Of+2015:+Rules+Of+The+Superior+Courts+(Judicial+Review)+2015
as is the significant effect this has on the recoverability (or not) of costs even when the application for judicial review is upheld.

This difficulty in recovering costs in turn has a knock on effect in the accessibility of redress by way of judicial review to anyone who does not have the substantial means to personally fund judicial review proceedings even in a case where their application would have significant merit.

I think lay litigants get away with very little costs though.

nuac

Mod
Are you actually personally embarking on a JR or have you an academic interest?

Steviesol

nuac wrote: »

Mod
Are you actually personally embarking on a JR or have you an academic interest?

No I am not embarking on a Judicial Review. As per my first post I am drawing comparisons against other jurisdictions . I have read charter I don't believe I am breaking it.

FishOnABike

Steviesol wrote: »

I think lay litigants get away with very little costs though.

As the saying goes “He who represents himself has a fool for a client"

A judicial review will often turn on fine legal or procedural detail and proving to the satisfaction of the court that the original proceedings were flawed. This doesn't readily lend itself to lay litigation as without in depth knowledge of the law and procedures and access to the proper resources (e.g. relevant unreported cases) a lay litigant is ill equipped to argue their case.

This in itself creates an uneven playing field when it comes to bringing a judicial review.

nuac

Mod
Leaving open as a study project subject to forum rules
Title amended for clarity

Steviesol

Thanks Admin.

Last query, in other countries, anyone can request a judicial review without question .

In Ireland do you need special permission or can anyone arrive and ask to be granted leave.

Are vexatious ones filtered out before leave for a request is granted.

Thanks

4ensic15

A person has to have locus standi to bring a judicial review. That is to say the decision they are seeking to have reviewed must affect them personally in some way. For example, I can't judicial review a decision by a local authority to compulsorily acquire another person's land.

Victor

In the context of a court decision (as opposed to a quasi-judicial decision), what is the difference between an ordinary appeal and a judicial review?

Mod
Sorry Victor, but I suggest we keep this thread to JRs
If you wish you could start a new thread about difference between JR and ordinary appear

Steviesol

4ensic15 wrote: »

A person has to have locus standi to bring a judicial review. That is to say the decision they are seeking to have reviewed must affect them personally in some way. For example, I can't judicial review a decision by a local authority to compulsorily acquire another person's land.

Thank you. Just to clarify my last point , if the person does have " locus standi" is there a way to filter out the vexatious litigants or do they still get their day in court as it were.

What I can find online is not clear.

Thanks

hullaballoo

The application for leave is the filter for vexatious actions. In order to successfully bring a JRx the first test is the leave application.

Once you have established you are entitled to bring the action in JR, you are granted leave. But the action isn't over at that stage, there is a substantive hearing with a threshold that's higher still than at the leave stage.

Steviesol

hullaballoo wrote: »

The application for leave is the filter for vexatious actions. In order to successfully bring a JRx the first test is the leave application.

Once you have established you are entitled to bring the action in JR, you are granted leave. But the action isn't over at that stage, there is a substantive hearing with a threshold that's higher still than at the leave stage.

Thank you for clarifying. All parties need to attened the application for leave , though, which I think does not filter out vexatious applicants in the first instance .

I think some changes are needed , where by the vexatious litigants are filtered out before the application for leave. This would prevent everyone from attending at the drop of a hat.

I am open to be proved wrong though.

4ensic15

Steviesol wrote: »

Thank you for clarifying. All parties need to attened the application for leave , though, which I think does not filter out vexatious applicants in the first instance .

I think some changes are needed , where by the vexatious litigants are filtered out before the application for leave. This would prevent everyone from attending at the drop of a hat.

I am open to be proved wrong though.

Usually a leave application is ex parte but the judge can direct that the leave hearing can be on notice. This is done occasionally.

Steviesol

4ensic15 wrote: »

Usually a leave application is ex parte but the judge can direct that the leave hearing can be on notice. This is done occasionally.

Thanks for the info. I'm trying to understand this more. It's fascinating, on what reasons usually would a judge direct that the hearing be done on notice ?

Carawaystick

So this query might be about a live case(i.e. the decision that could be JR'd was just last week), hopefully I can make it as general as I can, to avoid breaching the charter.

A Public authority brought an application of theirs, to a quasi-judicial body, which refused the application.

The qjb, in its decision, misunderstood basic english, applied prejudice to their definition of the basic english term and thought the singular of data was an anecdote from one of their staff; among other finer issues.

The decision, and its precident, if the qjb follows it, will impact the majority of people in the state.

Without asking for legal advice, can members of the public, affected by a decision of a public body (either the applicant or the qjb) have locus in such cases?
Can what appear to be errors of fact be challenged by JR?

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

So this query might be about a live case(i.e. the decision that could be JR'd was just last week), hopefully I can make it as general as I can, to avoid breaching the charter.

A Public authority brought an application of theirs, to a quasi-judicial body, which refused the application.

The qjb, in its decision, misunderstood basic english, applied prejudice to their definition of the basic english term and thought the singular of data was an anecdote from one of their staff; among other finer issues.

Translation: You don't think the decision was well-reasoned.

Carawaystick wrote: »

The decision, and its precident, if the qjb follows it, will impact the majority of people in the state.

Without asking for legal advice, can members of the public, affected by a decision of a public body (either the applicant or the qjb) have locus in such cases?

Entirely depends on how the member of the public is affected by the decision.

His concern that it might be treated as a precedent which might determine an application that he himself might hypothetically bring in the future would not be sufficient to give him standing. The view there would be that if he brings an application in the future and if that application is rejected on the basis of what he considers to be a bad precedent then he can attack that precedent when appealing the refusal of his own application.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Can what appear to be errors of fact be challenged by JR?

Depends on the error but, in principle, yes. You can challenge the decision on the basis that no reasonable decision-maker would have made this decision (so if it's based on obviously objerctively false premises, for example) or on the basis that the decision-maker has considered some irrelevant matter, or has failed to consider a relevant matter.

4ensic15

Steviesol wrote: »

Thanks for the info. I'm trying to understand this more. It's fascinating, on what reasons usually would a judge direct that the hearing be done on notice ?

Judges never say but it would seem to be they have a feeling they are not being told the full story at the ex parte stage and they think when they get the full story that the application might fail at the leave stage.

Steviesol

4ensic15 wrote: »

Judges never say but it would seem to be they have a feeling they are not being told the full story at the ex parte stage and they think when they get the full story that the application might fail at the leave stage.

Ah I see. That makes sense. Thanks