David Cameron believes that the UK is in the economic equivalent of war and says he will fight those who challenge government policy, saying that judicial reviews are hindering the UK's chance of returning to growth.
The war cry came in a speech to the Confederation of British Industries (CBI), a leading lobbying organisation that represents key UK companies and business interests.
The main target for his ire is the process of judicial review, whereby an individual or organisation can use the law courts to mount a challenge of any decision made by a 'public body', if they feel the procedure used or the basis for the decision was legally flawed.
Judicial reviews are not concerned with whether the decision taken was the right one or not, more that the correct procedures were followed in arriving at that decision.
Judicial review can be used in a wide variety of settings, for example: in challenging a decision made by a local authority relating to welfare benefits, to challenge decisions from immigration authorities, or to fight a planning application that has been granted.
Mr Cameron gave an example of judicial review in action in the business setting in his speech, in which he cited Virgin Rail's successful judicial review of the decision to award the West Coast Mainline franchise to First Group.
The rail franchise must now be retendered, a process that could take up to 18 months, and may end up costing the taxpayer £40m, as the Government has to pay the original bidders back the cost of their initial tenders.
Despite the cost to the taxpayer, the judicial review uncovered 'significant technical flaws' in the way the Department for Transport conducts its major procurement projects, resulting in the department suspending all other projects whilst a review is carried out.
Despite the obvious value of the judicial review process in this case and many others, Mr Cameron believes that it is a 'growth industry', citing a tripling in the number of cases brought between 1998 and today.
Mr Cameron wants to curb their use by limiting access to judicial review in court and putting an end to the equality impact assessments that determine whether a particular policy or decision unduly discriminates against a particular group on the basis of their age, ethnicity or religious beliefs.
In a Churchill-like war cry, he asked the audience to remember that during the second world war the way the civil service made decisions underwent a massive revolution, to focus all efforts on the defeat of Hitler.
"Well, this country is in the economic equivalent of war today - and we need the same spirit. We need to forget about crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i' - and we need to throw everything we've got at winning in this global race," he cried.
Opponents of the plans include Dan McLean, who represents the Campaign to Protect Rural England. He claims that judicial review is often the only way to successfully challenge bad planning decisions that may destroy areas of countryside.
"The system is already stacked against local people trying to protect the areas they love. The only way for local people to oppose a bad development that has already been granted planning permission is through judicial review," he said.
"Putting this option further out of reach for many people will only make it even harder for local people to take a democratic role in planning decisions where they live," he added.