A quadrupling of legal fees and tighter restrictions on time limits for lodging applications will choke off the “soaring number of judicial review” cases brought before the courts, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Announcing detailed changes following a six-week long consultation, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, will say on Tuesday that it will prevent claims being used as a “cheap delaying tactic” in planning and immigration appeals.
But the proposals have been condemned by immigration lawyers and Labour’s justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, who warned it would result in more “unlawful decisions going unchecked”.
The changes the government will announce include:
• Introducing a £215 court fee for anyone seeking a hearing in person after their initial written judicial review application has been turned down. It is currently £60.
• Banning people from seeking a hearing in person if their initial written application has been ruled as totally without merit.
• Halving the time limit for applying for a judicial review of a planning decision from three months to six weeks.
• Reducing the time limit for applying for a judicial review of a procurement decision (usually involving disputes over contracts awarded) from three months to four weeks.
Grayling said: “Judicial review should be used by people who have carefully considered whether they have proper grounds to challenge a decision. We are changing the system so it cannot be used anymore as a cheap delaying tactic.”
The MoJ believes the changes will dispel what it calls the “culture of using meritless judicial review applications” to delay immigration decisions and hold up development.
Figures from the department show the number of judicial review applications rose from 6,692 in 2007 to 11,359 in 2011. Only one in six was granted permission to proceed beyond the earliest stages and the number that were ultimately successful fell from 187 to 144.
The vast majority of judicial review decisions involve immigration cases. There were 8,649 judicial review applications made in 2011 as an attempt to overturn an immigration decision – but only 607 were considered suitable for a hearing and only 54 were ultimately successful.
The new court rules are expected to take effect this summer. The MoJ backed down on two other proposed changes following objections from judges and others.
It had wanted to impose time limits for appeals in ongoing cases where it would be difficult to work out when the clock might start running. It also decided not to preventing judicial reviews being taken when cases had already been subject to an earlier judicial decision.
Khan said: “The prime minister claims that judicial review is stifling economic growth. This is nonsense. The lack of economic growth is due to the government’s economic policies not due to unlawful decisions being challenged.
“No government is above the law. It is essential that where a government or other public body has acted unlawfully a judge can hold them to account. That’s why ministers need to guarantee that these proposals will not insulate government decisions from legal challenge or remove this crucial check and balance on their power.
“Recent history has shown the importance of judicial reviews in exposing shoddy and unlawful government decision-making – whether it be the disastrous west coast mainline franchising or the botched cancelling of Building Schools for the Future. Making challenges more difficult will result in an increased number of unlawful decisions going unchecked and local charities, residents associations and communities groups will be squeezed out, leaving only the well-resourced, powerful organisations able to bring judicial reviews.”
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has criticised the short period for consultation, saying: “For example, there is little or no consideration of the fact that significant numbers of judicial review claims settle pre- and post-permission, suggesting that far from being unmeritorious, or deliberate ‘delaying’ tactics, the claims were properly and responsibly brought and conducted, and that the parties managed to achieve a resolution of the claim without using further court time and resources.”