RE: Still waiting15 Nov 2021 12:26
Far better to read it all.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/3566.html
The best bit saved till last;
"Evidence
A substantial amount of evidence was produced in this case, particularly in the form of witness statements. Some of this material was, on its face, inadmissible in proceedings for judicial review. The admissibility of certain other passages was either unclear or dubious. This necessitated attempts by parties to clarify the status of the material, which were not wholly successful. Fortunately, I was not asked to make, nor, as it turns out, did I need to make, formal rulings on this subject. The reasoning in this judgment does not depend upon the resolution of any such issue.
The principles governing the admissibility of evidence in proceedings for judicial review are well-established and should, by now, be well-known. They were summarised, for example, in Flaxby Park Limited v Harrogate Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3204 (Admin) at [15] to [20].
It is also important to draw attention to the observations of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Burnett LCJ, in R (Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1605 at [116] to [121]. There is an increasing concern about the need for procedural rigour in judicial review in order for justice to be done. Prolix documents conceal rather than illuminate the case being advanced and the real issues genuinely needing to be resolved. This makes the Court's task more difficult, it is wasteful of costs and it may lead to delay. It can also lead to a disproportionate and unjustifiable use of the Court's resources for one case at the expense of other litigants waiting to have important issues raised by their cases resolved. The delivery of justice by allocating an "appropriate share" of the Court's resources to a case, while taking into account the needs of other cases underlies the overriding objective in CPR1.1 and other recent decisions, such as R (Wingfield) v Canterbury City Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1588 at [5] to [11]. These are matters to which practitioners, their clients and litigants need to pay careful attention in accordance with CPR 1.3, both in their own interests and in the interests of all court users.
Conclusion
For all the reasons set out above the claim is dismissed."
Sign In
Follow the stocks
