 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
The perceived difficulties can therefore be met. On the other side of the ledger,
adopting the new approach would appear to offer at least two benefits.
(a)
As mentioned above, a decision or measure taken by a public authority may
affect a number of persons, so that a number of potential applicants for judicial
review may exist. Under the present system, an applicant seeks leave ex parte
and without engaging any other interested parties. If leave is refused, the others
are not bound by the ruling and may not be aware of the grounds that had been
put forward by the unsuccessful applicant. This may result in a series of leave
applications, each made in isolation. An unsatisfactory result could occur
where more promising grounds are advanced in one case, resulting in the grant
of leave, but not advanced in other cases, where leave is refused.
(b)
Accordingly, the first benefit of the proposed system is that it alerts other
interested parties to, and may engage them in, the application. It encourages all
relevant grounds to be pooled and advanced in the same application, reducing
the likelihood of inconsistency and of duplication of leave applications.
(c)
Secondly, as previously indicated, the court will often be assisted in coming to a
decision as to whether leave should be granted where a respondent
acknowledges service and states the grounds for resisting the application. The
court may also profit from having before it additional grounds put forward by
interested parties.
|
 |
|