Public interest judicial review in cross-border perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

82 Downloads (Pure)


This paper assesses challenges in England and in Scotland to the ‘public interest conception’ of judicial review according to which judicial review is intended primarily to promote the public, rather than private, interest. It shows that though recent decades have seen the public interest conception of judicial review in the ascendency south of the border, there has been in the recent past a changing of the tide: the public interest conception of judicial review has been chipped away by legislative developments which reject the premise upon which it is based – largely by implementing procedural rules which are in significant tension with it. In Scotland, on the other hand, the courts have shown less enthusiasm for that conception, with many of the procedural rules and developments which reflect it having been resisted by the Scottish judiciary or acceded to only belatedly and with some reluctance. On the basis of a consideration of the issues of standing, protective costs orders and third party interventions, it shows that, though the conception of judicial review which sees it primarily as a tool by which the public interest can be pursued and protected is in poor health on both sides of the border, the details of, and reasons for that conclusion, differ in interesting ways.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)412-439
Number of pages28
JournalKing's Law Journal
Issue number3
Early online date9 Dec 2015
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 9 Dec 2015


  • public interest
  • judicial review
  • locus standi
  • standing
  • protective costs orders
  • protective expenses orders
  • third party interventions


Dive into the research topics of 'Public interest judicial review in cross-border perspective'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this