Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Newton of Braintree (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 31 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL].


Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I dare, as a non-lawyer, to intervene in these proceedings. I ought to declare my interest as chairman of the Council on Tribunals, although what I am about to say is entirely my view having listened to this debate. I can quite understand the force of the point that is made about a High Court judge, particularly in respect of the high-profile cases that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to. But if my ears were not deceiving me he also referred to large numbers of what he described as—this is his word, not mine—rubbishy applications for judicial review. I have to express some reservations about the desirability of insisting that the scarce resource of High Court judges should be used to deal with such applications. Some element of flexibility or, one could even say, judgment probably needs to be applied to what is required in particular cases. That is my individual reaction to what I have heard.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c246-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Consumers Disadvantaged Courts Administration of justice Cultural heritage Credit Debt collection Enforcement Legal aid scheme Judiciary Isle of Man Private sector Powers of entry Northern Ireland Public appointments Museums and galleries Ombudsman Standards Tribunals Training Security Regulation Security Industry Authority
Legislation
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk