36
CONFIDENTIAL
iz
:
!
government I have changed my view. In practice there is a tendency for leave for judicial review to be given ex parte rather easily. Godfrey J has resisted and commented upon it in recent judgements. By the same token, often without argument from
the judge, the Plaintiff's counsel on these ex parte hearings will be given stays and other relief which amount to excess of jurisdiction.
In many
cases the executive takes a relaxed attitude and
in reviews of quasi judicial proceedings a stay of further action pending the hearing for judicial review may be the proper course. But there are cases where it is necessary for the executive to
retain freedom to act on an unfettered basis.
In judicial review in 1982 there was a case of
an insolvent insurance company which the Registrar-
General, within statutory powers proposed to de-
register. The company applied for judicial review and sought interim relief which, ex parte, they
were granted. Since it was not in the public interest
that policies should continue to be written by this company, the Crown successfully argued the
point and the company was deregistered as planned. Members of the public were protected by the legal
rules which allowed the Crown freedom of action.
(I shall check this account for accuracy with Neil Kaplan Q.C. since our file seems to have been destroyed.)
In other cases, particularly in licensing cases the machinery of judicial review is blatantly used
to delay the inevitable and buy time in which to make money. Again the present rules represent the right balance. As you point out if new rights are established, the courts will accord to the
rights it protects an importance which will strongly affect their balancing of interests in deciding on interlocutory relief, if such relief is available.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.