O’Reilly Again: Oh Really? Procedural Exclusivity in Judicial Review

Ivan Hare QC
{"title":"O’Reilly Again: Oh Really? Procedural Exclusivity in Judicial Review","authors":"Ivan Hare QC","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.1964875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. It is almost 40 years since Lord Diplock introduced the concept of procedural exclusivity into English law: a rule of public policy that may lead to a claim against a public authority being struck out as an abuse of process if pursued by a procedure other than judicial review. For decades following the decision in O’Reilly, the courts’ time has been absorbed adjudicating upon ‘the undesirable complexities of this over-legalistic procedural dichotomy’. More recently, the focus has properly shifted to seeking a balance between the legitimate need to protect public decision-making from unmeritorious or tardy claims and the interests of challengers in having their claims decided on the merits rather than being struck out on procedural grounds. The whole episode calls into question whether it was ever appropriate to introduce so radical a reform by means of judicial decision.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judicial Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.1964875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. It is almost 40 years since Lord Diplock introduced the concept of procedural exclusivity into English law: a rule of public policy that may lead to a claim against a public authority being struck out as an abuse of process if pursued by a procedure other than judicial review. For decades following the decision in O’Reilly, the courts’ time has been absorbed adjudicating upon ‘the undesirable complexities of this over-legalistic procedural dichotomy’. More recently, the focus has properly shifted to seeking a balance between the legitimate need to protect public decision-making from unmeritorious or tardy claims and the interests of challengers in having their claims decided on the merits rather than being struck out on procedural grounds. The whole episode calls into question whether it was ever appropriate to introduce so radical a reform by means of judicial decision.
奥莱利:哦,真的吗?司法审查中的程序排他性
1. 迪普洛克勋爵(Lord Diplock)将程序排他性(procedural exclusivity)概念引入英国法律已有近40年的历史:这是一项公共政策规则,如果针对公共当局的索赔是通过司法审查以外的程序进行的,可能会被视为滥用程序而被排除。在奥莱利案判决之后的几十年里,法院的时间一直被“这种过于法律主义的程序二分法的不受欢迎的复杂性”所占据。最近,重点已适当地转移到寻求平衡,一方面是保护公共决策免受不值得或拖延的索赔的合法需要,另一方面是挑战者的利益,即他们的索赔应根据是非事实而不是因程序理由而被否决。整个事件让人怀疑,通过司法裁决来推行如此激进的改革是否合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信