Jack Castle
Jack is a barrister at Henderson Chambers specialising in commercial, financial services, product liability, employment, procurement, environmental and public law. He acts for claimants and defendants in both individual and group claims.
Before entering private practice Jack was a Visiting Lecturer in European Law at City Law School, University of London.
Practice Area
Panel
- Q&A Panel
Qualified Year
- 2018
Experience
- Commercial Court Judicial Assistant (to Cockerill J) (2021 - 2021)
- Visiting Lecturer in European Union Law, City Law School, University of London (2017 - 2018)
Membership
- ALBA
- COMBAR
- FSLA
- Environmental Law Foundation
Qualifications
- Bar Professional Training Course (2018)
- Graduate Diploma in Law (2017)
- M.St English Literature Post-1900 (2012)
- BA English Literature (2010)
Education
- City Law School, University of London, (2016-2018)
- University of Oxford (2011-2012)
- University of Bristol (2007-2010)
4 Contributions by Jack Castle
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial review and the duty of candour: disclosure expectations, public authority and solicitor responsibilities, and consequences of breach in England and Wales
In judicial review, noting that a document exists or once existed is usually achieved by the duty of candour, not by a formal disclosure process.
Default lack of formal disclosure and inspection exercise
By default there is no formal disclosure; it is not required unless the court directs otherwise. This is because judicial review turns on the legal consequences of mostly agreed facts; the court does not resolve factual disputes; and all sides owe a duty of candour to the court, so separate “disclosure” is unnecessary (though in practice the outcome is often similar). The same approach applies to judicial review, statutory reviews and appeals in the Administrative Court. The court retains a broad discretion to order disclosure, but that power will be exercised sparingly.
General duty of candour
All parties to judicial review are under a general duty of candour requiring them to reveal the necessary facts and information and to ensure these are put before the court so the issues can be determined fairly. This duty binds the claimant and any interested parties, as well as the defendant. Proper compliance with the duty of candour should result in sufficient disclosure. The duty...
Public Law
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial review costs: principles, pre‑permission, settlement/academic cases, public body recovery, and immigration—Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal practice (England and Wales)
General rule on costs in judicial review
The default position on costs in judicial review, as in other litigation, is that costs follow the event. That said, parties may apply for pre-emptive costs orders. The costs of, and incidental to, all proceedings in the High Court are within the court’s discretion. By statute, the High Court has discretion to award costs on a judicial review application. Taking into account every relevant circumstance, including the overriding objective, the court may make a costs decision that departs from the default rule.
The scope of the court’s discretion includes:
whether one party must pay another’s costs
the quantum of those costs
the timing of payment
Ordinarily, costs follow the event unless, on the particular facts, the court considers that a different order on costs, such as a pre-emptive costs order, should be made, for example to enable the claimant to continue the case. An unsuccessful claimant will be required to pay the public body’s costs, including pre-permission costs. A distinction may be drawn between a judicial review claim where a single decision is...
Public Law
PRACTICE NOTES
Judicial Review in England and Wales: Time Limits, Acknowledgement of Service, Extensions (including Denton/Mitchell), Procurement Act 2023 Deadlines, Managing Urgent/Out-of-Hours Applications, and Costs After Settlement
Time limits for bringing a judicial review claim
On receipt of a judicial review claim form, a public body should first carefully assess whether it has in fact been brought within time. For more detailed guidance, see Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol.
Different time limits apply for particular categories of judicial review claim:
Challenges to an Upper Tribunal decision must be filed within 16 days of the Tribunal’s decision notice being sent
Public procurement claims must be issued within 30 days of when a claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged breach of the public procurement rules
The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide, para 6.4.3.3, states: ‘Where the claim concerns a decision under [PA 2023], it must be commenced within the period specified by [PA 2023, s 106]: 30 days from the date when the claimant first knew or ought to have known that grounds for starting the proceedings had arisen’...
Public Law
PRACTICE NOTES
Minimising Judicial Review Risk: Decision-Making, Pre-Action Protocol, Permission-Stage Responses and Interim Relief for Public Bodies (England and Wales)
While a claimant cannot always be stopped from lodging judicial review proceedings, a public authority that follows a well‑founded decision-making process is better placed to convince the court to reject the case at the outset. Under CPR 54.1(2)(a), a judicial review claim is one seeking scrutiny of the lawfulness of either an enactment, or a decision, act, or omission connected to carrying out a public function. This Practice Note sets out measures a public body can adopt to guard against an adverse judicial review outcome. It offers non-exhaustive checklists of factors and sound practice aimed at lowering the prospects of permission being granted for judicial review applications...
Public Law
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
