The Nuclear Regulatory Review represents a significant milestone in the critique that judicial review contributes to sclerosis in the delivery of infrastructure. This analysis piece sets out and contextualises the theory of judicial review it adopts, which resonates with a strand of thinking I have elsewhere termed ‘litigant power’. It engages with the Review's proposed solutions to the challenge of judicial review in the nuclear sector, suggesting that some proposals, such as the targeted indemnification of projects under challenge, may represent creative responses which do not unduly impact access to justice. However, it contests the wisdom of some of the Review's recommendations in relation to the Aarhus environmental costs capping regime, suggesting there are concerns as regards their fairness, workability, and likelihood of achieving desired outcomes.
Sam Guy (Thu,) studied this question.