Mr Justice Fordham | |
|---|---|
 Fordham in 2022 | |
| High Court Judge King's Bench Division | |
| Assumed office 2020 [1] | |
| Monarchs | Elizabeth II Charles III |
| Personal details | |
| Born | 21 December 1964 [2] |
| Alma mater | Hertford College,Oxford [3] |
Sir Michael John Fordham,(born 21 December 1964),styled The Hon. Mr Justice Fordham,is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales assigned to the King's Bench Division. [1] [2] [4] He was appointed as a Justice of the High Court on 13 January 2020. [1]
Fordham was educated at Spalding Grammar School between 1976 and 1983. [5] He went on to study law at Hertford College,Oxford having been awarded a place through the Tanner Scheme. After achieving a First class degree,he stayed on at Oxford until 1987 to undertake a Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL). [3] In 1988 he obtained a Master of Laws (LLM) at the University of Virginia. [6] [3]
Fordham was called to the bar in 1990 by Gray's Inn, [5] and by 2006 had been appointed a Queen's Counsel. [3] Four years later he became a Civil Recorder,and in 2012,a Criminal Recorder. [1] He was appointed Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal,sitting for six years until 2018. He was authorised under s9(1) to sit as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2013. [7]
During his career as a barrister spanning 1990 to 2020,he specialised (inter alia) in public law,administrative law,immigration and asylum,health and human rights, [8] arguing more than 50 cases in the Administrative Court, [9] the House of Lords and the Supreme Court. [10]
Fordham is a Bencher of Gray's Inn where he formerly served as Master of Students. [11]
The following are among the cases argued by Fordham during his career as a barrister:
As a legal practitioner specialising in judicial review, [19] Fordham has authored seven editions of his Judicial Review Handbook. [20] [21] In the foreword to the 5th Edition,Lord Woolf paid tribute to the author,saying that the handbook was "an institution for those who practise public law". [22]
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.
Mary Howarth Arden, Baroness Mance,, PC, known professionally as Lady Arden of Heswall, is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Before that, she was a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.
David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick, is a British barrister and a crossbencher in the House of Lords and Blackstone Chambers. He practises primarily in public law and human rights and has argued high profile cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Sir Stephen John Sedley is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and was a visiting professor at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2015.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He served earlier as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation in Singapore protects both procedural and substantive rights. In administrative law, a legitimate expectation generally arises when there has been a representation of a certain outcome by the public authorities to an individual. To derogate from the representation may amount to an abuse of power or unfairness. The doctrine of legitimate expectation as a ground to quash decisions of public authorities has been firmly established by the English courts. Thus, where a public authority has made a representation to an individual who would be affected by a decision by the authority, the individual has a legitimate expectation to have his or her views heard before the decision is taken. Alternatively, an individual may also have a legitimate expectation to a substantive right. The recognition of substantive legitimate expectations is somewhat controversial as it requires a balancing of the requirements of fairness against the reasons for any change in the authority's policy. This suggests the adoption of a free-standing proportionality approach, which has been said not to apply in administrative law.
Sir Timothy Roger Alan King, styled The Hon. Mr Justice King, is a retired judge of the High Court of England and Wales assigned to the Queen's Bench Division.
Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.
Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.
The Vice-President of the Civil Division is a Court of Appeal Judge who assists the Master of the Rolls in leading the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The power to appoint a vice-president was created by the Senior Courts Act 1981, but was not exercised until Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers was appointed Master of the Rolls in 2000. Because Lord Phillips was in the process of completing the inquiry into the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak, he appointed Sir Martin Nourse the first vice-president so he could serve as Acting Master of the Rolls.
Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos is a judge in England and Wales. Since January 2021, he has held the positions of Master of the Rolls and the Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales.
In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.
R (March) v Secretary of State for Health was a 2010 judicial review which challenged the UK Department of Health's decision not to implement Recommendation 6(h) of the Archer Independent Inquiry. The case was important in developing the doctrine of error of fact in public law which previously had not readily been the subject of judicial intervention.
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a landmark Court of Appeal case of 2004 which significantly developed the doctrine of error of fact as a distinct ground which was taken in conjunction with the question of new evidence being considered in order to establish the error. The case laid out in definitive terms the criteria for the court to review a finding of mistake of fact leading to unfairness. In establishing an error of fact according to the requirements, a duty was identified to consider a decision; in particular, the duty to reopen a matter or direct a rehearing. The question of new evidence produced after the hearing but before the decision date was considered within the context of the power of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) to direct a rehearing.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a UK court case that ruled that the Home Office did not have an obligation to offer a third gender "X" option on passports.
CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time.
On behalf of the respondents, Mr Fordham QC accepted that adherence to the Dublin processes and procedures had a high value...
On behalf of the appellants, Mr Michael Fordham QC submits that the ECtHR would now conclude that the Secretaries of State's refusal to establish a public inquiry constitutes a breach of the article 2 procedural obligation and that we should foreclose the need for the appellants to apply to the ECtHR by reaching the same conclusion, having had due regard to the decision of the Grand Chamber in Janowiec, pursuant to our duty under section 2 of the Human Rights Act.
... the seventh edition approximates to a restatement of the law of judicial review...
...an institution for those who practise public law...it has the authority that comes from being compiled by an author of singular distinction.(Lord Woolf, from the Foreword to the Fifth Edition).
For brevity, the words "Mr/Mrs Justice" have been omitted from judges' titles. | ||
| Division heads |  | |
| Puisne judges |
| |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
