 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The rule then goes on
to provide certain other definitions, and adopts a less technical
term as an equivalent
for each of the relevant remedies. Relevant definitions include
the following :-
"(b)
an order of mandamus is called a ‘mandatory order';
(c)
an order of prohibition is called a ‘prohibiting order';
(d)
an order of certiorari is called a ‘quashing order';
(e)
‘the judicial review procedure' means the Part 8 procedure
as modified by this Part;
(f)
‘interested party' means any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is
directly affected by the claim ......"
and may be used respectively. It is at this point that the remedies sought become
important.
"CPR 54.2
The judicial review procedure must be used in a claim for judicial review where the claimant
is seeking—
(a)
a mandatory order;
(b)
a prohibiting order;
(c)
a quashing order; or
(d)
an injunction under section 30 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (restraining a
person from acting in any office in which he is not entitled to act).
CPR 54.3
(1)
The judicial review procedure may be used in a claim for judicial review where the
claimant is seeking—
(a)
a declaration; or
(b)
an injunction.
(2)
A claim for judicial review may include a claim for damages, restitution or the
recovery of a sum due but may not seek such a remedy alone."
Notes
These are merely equivalents, since the traditional terminology continues to be used in ss 29 and 31
of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
The alternative procedure under CPR 8.
In Hong Kong, see HCO s 21J.
|
 |
|