The Asbestos Victims Support Groups' Forum UK, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The Asbestos Victims Support Groups' Forum UK, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The court held that no substantive legitimate expectation arose from the Defendant’s representations, as they were not clear, unambiguous, or specifically directed at the Claimant or asbestos-related disease sufferers. The PIR’s failure to analyse the impact on asbestos-related disease claimants in detail did not amount to unfairness or abuse of power. The Defendant was not legally obliged to conduct the PIR in the manner sought by the Claimant, nor to engage with stakeholder evidence beyond what was done.

Parties
Claimant: The Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum UK; Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Legal Aid, Civil Litigation Funding, Personal Injury, Asbestos Related Disease Claims
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legitimate Expectation Judicial Review Legal Aid Civil Litigation Funding Personal Injury Asbestos Related Disease Claims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Asbestos Victims Support Groups’ Forum UK

Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant had a substantive legitimate expectation that the Post Implementation Review (PIR) of LASPO Part 2 would include a thorough and substantive analysis of the impact on asbestos-related disease sufferers
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to engage conscientiously with stakeholder evidence regarding the impact of LASPO Part 2 reforms on asbestos-related disease claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that no substantive legitimate expectation arose from the Defendant’s representations, as they were not clear, unambiguous, or specifically directed at the Claimant or asbestos-related disease sufferers. The PIR’s failure to analyse the impact on asbestos-related disease claimants in detail did not amount to unfairness or abuse of power. The Defendant was not legally obliged to conduct the PIR in the manner sought by the Claimant, nor to engage with stakeholder evidence beyond what was done.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused.