The court was asked to order a stay on implementing a decision taken by the respondent.
Held: A ‘stay of proceedings’ in the context of applications for judicial review embraced not only judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings but also extended to decisions of the Secretary of State and the process by which such decisions had been reached, including the decision itself. A distinction was to be made between civil litigation, where an injunction might be ordered at the suit of one party against the other, and judicial review, where the decision-maker is not in any true sense an opposing party and where the order that the decision should not take effect until the challenge had been determined is correctly described as a stay.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘A stay is an order that the judicial proceeding or administrative decision which is the subject of challenge should not continue or take effect until the judicial review challenge is determined. It is available as a remedy against all public bodies against whom leave has been granted, including the Crown in the form of a government department or minister.’ The language of the rule is wide enough to enable the court to impose a stay on ‘the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself’.
However, the availability of an expedited hearing of the application for judicial review made it unnecessary to order a stay: ‘We decided that the court has such jurisdiction. However, when it became clear to us that an early hearing of the substantive application could be arranged, we considered that a stay was unnecessary, and declined to grant a stay.’
Glidewell LJ said also: ‘Today, many applications for judicial review are for orders of certiorari to quash decisions of decision-making bodies other than courts, including government ministers, local authorities and other bodies whose decisions are susceptible to judicial review. Thus the phrase ‘a stay of the proceedings’ in relation to such bodies must mean a ‘stay of the process by which the decision challenged has been reached, including the decision itself.’
Judges:
Glidewell LJ, Taylor LJ, Sir George Waller
Citations:
[1991] 1 QB 558
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.428418
