Compose a 1500 words essay on Judicial review. Needs to be plagiarism free!In England and Wales the Civil Procedure Rules requires that any claim form in respect of an application for judicial review

Compose a 1500 words essay on Judicial review. Needs to be plagiarism free!

In England and Wales the Civil Procedure Rules requires that any claim form in respect of an application for judicial review must be filed within three months from the time that the grounds to make the claim first arose1. Judicial review permits people with sufficient interest in a decision or action by a public body to seek judicial review in respect of the legality of an enactment or a decision and action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function2. Judicial review can be resorted to whenever right of appeal is absent or if all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. In such cases the court may insist upon both the defendant and the claimant to provide evidence for the existence of alternative means of resolving their dispute and as such the court will view such litigation as a last resort and will not issue any premature claims.

In Morbaine Limited v First Secretary of State3, the Secretary of State granted planning permission for a large mixed-use development. A petition was filed under the Town and Country Planning Act, in the court to quash that decision4. This means of challenge is available to any person who is aggrieved by such decisions. However Blackburne J dismissed the application holding that the petitioners had no grounds of challenge as it lacks sufficient standing for the purposes of section 288. This decision makes it amply clear that petitioner must have a real or genuine interest in obtaining the relief sought.

In R v Enfield London Borough Council5, the council accorded permission for Grade II listed building to be used as offices and for the construction of a nursing home in the premises. The conservation advisory group consented to these proposals. The claimant contended that these decisions were invalid due to the bias inherent among the conservation advisory group members. Richards J accepted this and quashed the