Clause 1 - Quashing orders

Judicial Review and Courts Bill – in the House of Commons at 4:13 pm on 25 January 2022.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

  • Division number 170
    A majority of MPs voted to only allow a court to delay, or remove retrospective effects of, a court order quashing a decision made by a public body in cases where that action offers "an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected" rather than where it "appears" to "provide adequate redress".

Amendment proposed: 25, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 32 and insert—

“(9) Provision may only be made under subsection (1) if and to the extent that the court considers that an order making such provision would, as a matter of substance, offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act in relation to the relevant defect.” —(Andy Slaughter.)

This amendment would remove the presumption and make it a precondition of the court’s exercise of the new remedial powers that they should offer an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected by the impugned act.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division number 170 Judicial Review and Courts Bill — Clause 1 — Quashing Orders — Effective Remedy vs Adequate Redress

A majority of MPs voted to only allow a court to delay, or remove retrospective effects of, a court order quashing a decision made by a public body in cases where that action offers "an effective remedy to the claimant and any other person materially affected" rather than where it "appears" to "provide adequate redress".

Aye: 227 MPs

No: 306 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

Tellers

No: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Absent: 111 MPs

Absent: A-Z by last name

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.