Britain plans curbs on infrastructure JRs
British chancellor John Healey has outlined plans to curb judicial review for all major infrastructure projects in a bid to encourage economic growth.
In a speech in Coventry on Monday (7 September), Healey announced that judicial-review reforms unveiled by his predecessor Rachel Reeves would be extended from critical energy schemes to all major infrastructure developments “so that vexatious litigants cannot block economic growth”.
Healey noted that the Sizewell C nuclear power station project was delayed by two judicial reviews, both of which ended up being dismissed by the courts.
Meanwhile, he announced, Britain's attorney general would publish updated guidance “making clear that legal risk should inform ministers’ decisions, not dictate them”.
“Businesses take risks every day in order to invest, innovate and grow – this government believes it should have the confidence to make decisions, act in the public interest and be judged on the outcomes it delivers,” Healey, who was appointed by Labour prime minister Andy Burnham, stated.
‘Significant burden’
According to the England-and-Wales Law Society Gazette, however, reaction from lawyers suggests that the chancellor may need to go further.
It quoted George McLellan, a disputes partner at public-law specialist Sharpe Pritchard as backing the extension of JR curbs.
“It is increasingly common for litigants in person to use AI to seek to disrupt decision-making processes, which can impose a significant burden on public authorities and hold up the development of important infrastructure,” he said.
“One option that should be given renewed focus is strengthening costs sanctions to impose meaningful costs penalties on individuals or entities that pursue meritless judicial-review litigation,” McLellan added.
Human-rights ‘loophole’
The Gazette also quoted Paolo Caldato, a dispute-resolution partner at international firm Spencer West, as warning that the plan would not stop ‘lawfare’ but merely force it to evolve.
“This proposal is caught between two fundamental, contradictory tensions,” he said.
“Constitutionally, by-passing standard judicial oversight risks eroding democratic accountability and executive checks and balances; practically, leaving a human-rights safeguard opens an obvious loophole.
“Because the UK remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, legal challengers will simply re-shape their claims around article 8 rights,” Caldato stated.
He concluded that the real victory for the British government would not be stopping legal challenges entirely, but forcing these “inevitable” battles into a hyper-accelerated court timetable.