Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Explanatory Notes

Section 85: Provision of information about financial resources

639.Section 85 provides that where an applicant applies to the High Court under the law of England and Wales for permission to proceed with a judicial review, permission cannot be granted unless the applicant provides information about the financing of the judicial review.

640.Subsection (1) amends section 31(3) of the 1981 Act to prevent the High Court from granting permission for an applicant to proceed to judicial review unless the applicant has provided the court with information specified in rules of court on how the judicial review is financed.

641.Subsection (2) inserts new subsections (3A) and (3B) into section 31 of the 1981 Act which make provision about the information that rules of court may require the applicant to provide. Subsection (3A)(a) provides that information that may be required includes the source, nature and extent of any financial support that has been or is likely to be provided to the applicant for use in the judicial review proceedings. Subsection (3B) stipulates that these rules of court may only require the applicant to provide information which identifies a person who has provided financial support, or who is likely to provide it, if that financial support exceeds a level to be set in the rules. Subsection (3A)(b) further provides that if the applicant is a corporate body that cannot demonstrate that it has the financial resources needed to meet its costs liabilities, then rules may require information to be provided about the body’s membership and members’ ability to provide financial support for the judicial review. The restriction in subsection (3B) does not apply to this information about a corporate body’s membership and its members’ ability to provide financial support.

642.Subsections (3) and (4) amend and insert new subsections into section 16 of the 2007 Act which makes parallel provision about the provision of information about the financing of judicial reviews in the Upper Tribunal.

Back to top