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

Programme

1. 09:30

   Registration and coffee

2. 10:00

   Chair's Introduction

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

   Chaired by Christine O'Neill KC Chairperson of Brodies

   Christine is “irreplaceably smart, thoroughly decent, and the finest Scots public lawyer of her generation.” She handles some of the most sophisticated and significant JRs and public inquiries.

3. 10:10

   Relief and remedies

   How far can you push the Court on relief and remedies, given the recent reforms to JR, and the ramifications of decisions such as Imam v Croydon (2023) in the Supreme Court?

   Answered by Jenni Richards KC of 39 Essex Chambers

   Jenni acted as lead counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry. "Her ability to get on top of huge amounts of complex material in pressured circumstances is quite incredible."

4. 10:45

   Duty of candour

   How have recent cases changed existing thinking on the scope of the duty of candour, including a "staged" duty of candour as asserted in ongoing cases?

   Answered by Nicola Braganza KC of Garden Court Chambers

   Nicola is “absolutely fearless, charming, ruthless, incredibly effective and a fighter”. She acted in the wide-ranging litigation arising from the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

5. 11:20

   Morning Coffee

6. 11:35

   Consultation

   Where is the line between (1) consultation and (2) informal engagement in JR claims following the spate of recent cases, and how do you turn the argument in your client's favour?

   Answered by James Maurici KC of Landmark Chambers

   James is "one of the top JR silks at the Bar - bringing a really clear insight into how cases are won and lost." He defended five JRs over the proposed new runway at Heathrow.

7. 12:10

   No Substantial Difference

   What counts and what will sway the court over time limits and the No Substantial Difference test in light of R (CU) v Secretary of State for Education?

   Answered by Tom Cross of 11 KBW

   Tom acted in the JR over the Government’s responsibility for children with special educational needs. “His advice is absolutely reliable and he comes up with innovative and creative arguments.”

8. 12:45

   Overrun

9. 13:00

   Lunch

10. 13:45

    Fairness

    What is the latest judicial thinking on procedural and substantive fairness in the post-Gallaher decisions, and what are the implications for the associated intensity of review?

    Answered by James McClelland KC of Brick Court Chambers

    James represented a Yemeni group in its challenge to the Government’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. “He is a phenomenally good barrister with an outstanding mind and judgement.”

11. 14:20

    Public Sector Equality Duty

    To what extent does PSED compliance engage civil rights and obligations in the way that substantive discrimination does for Article 6 ECHR, and what is the impact on challenges?

    Answered by Tim Buley KC of Landmark Chambers

    Tim is acting in the Rwanda litigation on behalf of NGO claimants. “His ability to locate key issues in complex cases is uncanny.” He contributes to Supperstone, Goudie & Walker on Judicial Review.

12. 14:55

    Parliamentary Privilege

    How do you balance the competing considerations of parliamentary privilege and judicial review? What are the legal and practical option?

    Answered by Sarah Hannett KC of Matrix Chambers

    Sarah is "a pre-eminent JR lawyer, known for her ability to find solutions." She acted in the Third Direction case, the lawfulness of MI5 agents participating in criminal activity.

13. 15:30

    Over-run

14. 16:00

    Close of conference