Judicial review will be curbed for all major infrastructure projects to drive growth, John Healey has declared in his first big speech as chancellor of the exchequer. However, reactions from lawyers so far suggest the chancellor may need to go further to stop 'vexatious' litigants.

Setting out his plan to ‘drive growth in every postcode’ in a speech to the Manufacturing Technology Centre in Coventry yesterday, Healey announced that judicial review reforms unveiled by his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, would be extended from critical energy schemes to all major infrastructure developments ‘so that vexatious legislation cannot block economic growth’.

Healey noted that the Sizewell C nuclear power station project was delayed by two judicial reviews, both of which ended up being dismissed by the courts.

Meanwhile, he announced, the attorney general will publish updated guidance 'making clear that legal risk should inform ministers’ decisions, not dictate them. Businesses take risks every day in order to invest, innovate and grow – this government believes it should have the confidence to make decisions, act in the public interest and be judged on the outcomes it delivers.' 

Read more:

George McLellan, a disputes partner at public law specialist Sharpe Pritchard, backed the extension of JR curbs. 'It is increasingly common for litigants in person to use AI to seek to disrupt decision-making processes, which can impose a significant burden on public authorities and hold up the development of important infrastructure,’ he said. 

'One option that should be given renewed focus is strengthening costs sanctions to impose meaningful costs penalties on individuals or entities that pursue meritless judicial review litigation,' McLellan added.

Paolo Caldato, a dispute resolution partner at international firm Spencer West, warned that the plan would not stop ‘lawfare’ but merely force it to evolve.

Caldato said: ‘This proposal is caught between two fundamental, contradictory tensions. Constitutionally, bypassing standard judicial oversight risks eroding democratic accountability and executive checks and balances. Practically, leaving a human rights safeguard opens an obvious loophole. Because the UK remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, legal challengers will simply re-shape their claims around article 8 rights.

‘The real victory for the treasury won't be stopping legal challenges entirely, but compressing the calendar. By forcing these inevitable human rights battles into a hyper-accelerated court timetable, the government may successfully prevent legal actions from causing the multi-year construction delays that have historically paralysed British infrastructure.’