 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
As to delay, it is true that under the revised procedural scheme, the applicant must
generally allow the respondent and any interested parties time to decide whether to
acknowledge service and if so, to formulate their response. A period of 21 days is
allowed by CPR 54.8. However, unless the application is of particular urgency, the
interposition of such a period would not normally cause anyone difficulties. It may be
noted that CPR 54.8(3) makes it clear that the parties may not extend time limits under
the rule by agreement.
Of course, if an application for judicial review had to be made as a matter of urgency,
as with urgent applications in other fields, an application could be made for interim
relief on very short notice to the respondent or, if very urgent, on an ex parte basis :
see, eg, R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal LBC, ex p Hammell [1989] 1 QB 518; M v
Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377.
The need for special measures which override normal time limits in urgent cases is
recognized under the CPR. For example, the pre-action protocol states :-
"This protocol will not be appropriate in urgent cases, for example, when directions have
been set, or are in force, for the claimant's removal from the UK, or where there is an urgent
need for an interim order to compel a public body to act where it has unlawfully refused to do
so (for example, the failure of a local housing authority to secure interim accommodation for
a homeless claimant) a claim should be made immediately."
Guidance has also been given in the Practice Statement (Administrative Court: Listing
and Urgent Cases) [2002] 1 WLR 810.
|
 |
|