Talk:Judicial review in English law

Rescued content from Judicial Review
We're no longer using "summary style" at the Judicial Review page, and I deleted the content there. However, I'm preserving it HERE in case it contains any good formulations that you want to insert into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agradman (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 June 2009

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Judicial review in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210112015/http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf to http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524034326/http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part54.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part54.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313235953/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Supreme+Court+Act&Year=1981&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2033370&ActiveTextDocId=2033416&filesize=4940 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Supreme+Court+Act&Year=1981&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2033370&ActiveTextDocId=2033416&filesize=4940
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313235953/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Supreme+Court+Act&Year=1981&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2033370&ActiveTextDocId=2033416&filesize=4940 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Supreme+Court+Act&Year=1981&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2033370&ActiveTextDocId=2033416&filesize=4940
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210112015/http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf to http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709074338/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd981125/pino01.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd981125/pino01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210112015/http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf to http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/CCSUVM_1%20DOC.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Prohibiting order v. injunction
It would be very useful if the page could make clear what the differences between a prohibiting order and an injunction are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.249.168 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording of the lead
"Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, English law does not permit judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by Parliament), even where primary legislation is contrary to EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights. A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore cannot apply for judicial review unless this is the case, but may still argue that a body did not follow the Act."

I'm having trouble comprehending this passage. Surely the highlighted phrase would more usefully read "if this is the case"? Or the whole sentence might read "A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore can apply for judicial review unless this is the case.."? Harfarhs (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed. also separated that subject into its own paragraph. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to split "Error of Law" from "Error of Fact"
Under the Jurisdiction subsection [| Error of law or error of fact], would it be better to split the two doctrines into two paragraphs with separate sub-headings? The area of "error of fact" has developed considerably and now has the additional ground of "material error of fact". It could be said that these areas are diverging naturally. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)