Talk:Judicial review in English law

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rescued content from Judicial Review[edit]

We're no longer using "summary style" at the Judicial Review page, and I deleted the content there. However, I'm preserving it HERE in case it contains any good formulations that you want to insert into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agradman (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 June 2009

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Judicial review in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibiting order v. injunction[edit]

It would be very useful if the page could make clear what the differences between a prohibiting order and an injunction are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.249.168 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the lead[edit]

"Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, English law does not permit judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by Parliament), even where primary legislation is contrary to EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights. A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore cannot apply for judicial review unless this is the case, but may still argue that a body did not follow the Act."

I'm having trouble comprehending this passage. Surely the highlighted phrase would more usefully read "if this is the case"? Or the whole sentence might read "A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore can apply for judicial review unless this is the case.."? Harfarhs (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. also separated that subject into its own paragraph. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split "Error of Law" from "Error of Fact"[edit]

Under the Jurisdiction subsection [Error of law or error of fact], would it be better to split the two doctrines into two paragraphs with separate sub-headings? The area of "error of fact" has developed considerably and now has the additional ground of "material error of fact". It could be said that these areas are diverging naturally. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]