Judicial review, risks for party taking it? Seeking general info on experience of the

erudec · 03-07-2018 01:53PM #1

I'm currently involved in a situation where the legal team are eager to take a Judicial review against the state body they're in a dispute with.

I'm not familiar with this, but I wonder what the risks are if the JR finds in favour of the state body.

Could our side be hit with the state's costs if the judicial review doesn't bear out the results expected by the legal lads?

Or is that not how judicial reviews work?

How has the state opposed judicial reviews in your personal experience?

(Sorry, I will not provide more details so please refrain from asking; you'll have to work with what I have given you or take a pass on the thread)

03-07-2018 02:03PM

Are the eager legal eagles in-house or external? Are they going to benefit from the decision to proceed?

erudec · 03-07-2018 02:22PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are the eager legal eagles in-house or external? Are they going to benefit from the decision to proceed?

External. I am not certain of whether they will benefit except in their fees.

Would you happen to know if costs can be awarded against the party taking the JR?

ohnonotgmail · 03-07-2018 03:03PM

erudec wrote: »

Could our side be hit with the state's costs if the judicial review doesn't bear out the results expected by the legal lads?

The other side can seek costs if you lose. whether they will is not something that anybody here can tell you.

erudec · 03-07-2018 03:14PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The other side can seek costs if you lose. whether they will is not something that anybody here can tell you.

So to clarify, if Joe Bloggs takes a JR against the Department of Silly Walks, and loses, the DSW can make JB pay (if it wants to)?

ohnonotgmail · 03-07-2018 03:18PM

erudec wrote: »

So to clarify, if Joe Bloggs takes a JR against the Department of Silly Walks, and loses, the DSW can make JB pay (if it wants to)?

they can certain seek an order for costs. Making them pay is a separate matter. you cant get blood out of a stone.

Claw Hammer · 03-07-2018 03:19PM

erudec wrote: »

So to clarify, if Joe Bloggs takes a JR against the Department of Silly Walks, and loses, the DSW can make JB pay (if it wants to)?

It can apply for an order for costs. The general rule is that "costs follow the event". In theory, the loser of a judicial review will have a costs order against them, which is enforceable at the option of the party who secured the costs order.

antoinolachtnai · 03-07-2018 03:20PM

erudec wrote: »

So to clarify, if Joe Bloggs takes a JR against the Department of Silly Walks, and loses, the DSW can make JB pay (if it wants to)?

Yes. This is how costs work in Ireland.

I have taken a few JRs in my time. The main thing is to understand the cause of the lawyers’ enthusiasm.

JR is mostly won by showing there was an unfair process or the correct steps were not followed. It is not enough (by and large) to convince the judge that there was a mistake. There has to be some sort of injustice.

Winning at JR is not easy.

erudec · 03-07-2018 04:07PM

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes. This is how costs work in Ireland.

I have taken a few JRs in my time. The main thing is to understand the cause of the lawyers’ enthusiasm.

JR is mostly won by showing there was an unfair process or the correct steps were not followed. It is not enough (by and large) to convince the judge that there was a mistake. There has to be some sort of injustice.

Winning at JR is not easy.

Well maybe they're enthusiastic because if they win it's a major feather in their cap and if they lose it's someone else who has to pay.

Mr. Incognito · 03-07-2018 05:49PM

Judicial reviews have to be taken within 3 months of the Decision

It is grounded on a case stated and an Affidavit.

Leave of the High Court is sought on an ex parte basis before you can issue and serve. If you cant show cause you dont get over this hurdle.

If you can show a prima facie case the HC judge will grant leave to judicial review.

Then you serve within 7 days of the perfected order.

It is technical - specialised area and expensive to get right and fatal to get wrong.

04-07-2018 06:47AM

erudec wrote: »

External. I am not certain of whether they will benefit except in their fees.

Cha-ching! Ask them to take the risk on fees and see how enthusiastic they will be.

Claw Hammer · 04-07-2018 12:34PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cha-ching! Ask them to take the risk on fees and see how enthusiastic they will be.

A large number of Judicial Reviews are taken on that basis. All of the Immigration cases are done that way.

Robbo · 04-07-2018 12:57PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A large number of Judicial Reviews are taken on that basis. All of the Immigration cases are done that way.

Many planning cases are also taken on a no-foal no-fee basis as there's absolutely no downside to losing since we've adopted our interpretation of the Aarhus convention.

erudec · 04-07-2018 06:10PM

Robbo wrote: »

Many planning cases are also taken on a no-foal no-fee basis as there's absolutely no downside to losing since we've adopted our interpretation of the Aarhus convention.

I thought no foal no fee was illegal now?

If you feel like telling me, what is our interpretation of the Aarhus convention in this context and how does it change matters?

GM228 · 04-07-2018 07:42PM

erudec wrote: »

I thought no foal no fee was illegal now

Only an advertisement published or caused to be published containing the words is prohibited, actually providing the service is not the same as advertising the service.

Robbo · 06-07-2018 12:44PM

erudec wrote: »

I thought no foal no fee was illegal now?

If you feel like telling me, what is our interpretation of the Aarhus convention in this context and how does it change matters?

In general terms, the Aarhus Convention protects an applicant from having heavy costs awarded against them if they're unsuccessful. The UK has decided to interpret this as placing a cap (something in the region of £3-5k as far as I can remember) on the costs which may be awarded against an applicant.

In practice in Ireland, no costs orders will be made against unsuccessful applicants in environmental cases unless their case is completely unstateable. The result has been an explosion in unsuccessful but somewhat meritorious judicial reviews taking place as the applicants have nothing to lose so long as they reach an accommodation with their own legal representation.

antoinolachtnai · 06-07-2018 12:51PM

Am I correct in understanding that in this situation, if the applicant for JR should win, they will not get their costs paid by the State?

Judicial review, risks for party taking it? Seeking general info on experience of the

Comments