Judicial Review: Shaping New Law into Solution-Focused Answers for Your Clients

Wed 18 April 2018

The Caledonian Club 9 Halkin Street London SW1X 7DR

Answers to 14 Thorny Questions: Directly from 7 QCs of Outstanding Ability

5 hrs CPD

Add your name to the waiting list.

This conference is now fully booked.

Waiting List


  1. Registration and coffee

  2. Chairman's introduction

    Judicial Review: Shaping new law into solution-focused answers for your clients

    Chaired by: Jonathan Crow QC

    Jonathan is “one of the greatest barristers of our time - outstandingly clever and really wonderful to work with." His public law cases include Guantanamo Bay and assisted suicide. He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge.

  3. Deference

    What do Article 6 and the common law provide in terms of deference to regulatory and expert panels and with what implications for JR?

    Answered by: Jenni Richards QC

    Jenni is "a complete star - one of the very best silks - she is able to pick up cases and develop them in such interesting ways." She acted in the challenge to Jeremy Hunt's decision to impose a new junior doctors’ contract.

  4. Damages

    What are the practical and legal implications of the removal of Francovich damages as envisaged in the Repeal Bill?

    How is it going to pan out?

    Answered by: James Goudie QC

    James is co-author of Supperstone, Goudie and Walker on Judicial Review. He is "the fount of all knowledge for Judicial Review." He is a Deputy High Court Judge and brings "gravitas and strategic insight to his cases."

  5. Morning coffee

  6. Candour

    Is there a de facto Duty of Disclosure in JR litigation?

    What does the Duty of Candour really require from defendants and interested parties?

    What must claimants provide?

    How can this process be managed in a judicial review?

    Answered by: James Maurici QC

    James is "one of the top JR silks at the Bar - bringing a really clear insight into how cases are won and lost." He acted in the JR challenging the decision to prefer the Heathrow airport expansion scheme.

  7. Proportionality

    Is the civil law interpretation of proportionality causing the Court to become political and therefore harder to predict?

    Is proportionality part of English law on JR?

    Answered by: Jessica Simor QC

    Jessica is recognised as one of the country’s leading JR specialists. Her knowledge and skill is “brilliant and unparalleled;” her advocacy "superb." She acted in the controversial "Brexit/Article 50" litigation.

  8. Over-run

  9. Lunch

  10. No Substantial Difference

    To what extent is the "no substantial difference test" making it more difficult to bring a JR application?

    How is the test being applied?

    Answered by: Jemima Stratford QC

    Jemima is "supremely clever and as sharp as a knife." "She is always prepared to take difficult points." She acted for the three NGOs in the JR challenging the legality of UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

  11. Intensity of review

    How do judges decide?

    Answered by: Jonathan Swift QC

    Jonathan is a "brilliant legal mind, who is revered for his knowledge of public law." He is a former First Treasury Counsel, where he led for the Government on major cases across the whole field of government activity.

  12. HRA Damages

    With the $4 bn Bank Mellat litigation bubbling away, what principles of (1) causation, (2) quantum and (3) mitigation should you apply to HRA damages?

    Answered by: James McClelland

    James is "a rising star of the Bar - quite simply superb." He is acting for MedCo in defending three linked judicial review challenges to the implementation of the MoJ’s accreditation scheme for medical reporting in soft-tissue injury claims.

  13. Over-run

  14. Close of conference

** All speaker quotes are taken from Chambers Directory, Who's Who Legal and Legal 500