Judicial Review Basics

Judicial review is a court procedure in which the High Court (Administrative Court) examines whether a decision by a public body was made lawfully. The court does not consider whether the decision was the "right" decision — it considers whether it was made in accordance with the law, following proper procedures, and without irrationality or unlawful discrimination.

Grounds for judicial review include:

• Illegality: The public body acted outside its legal powers (ultra vires)
• Procedural unfairness: The decision was made without giving the affected person a fair hearing or without following required procedures
• Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it
• Legitimate expectation: The body made a promise or established a practice that was not followed without justification

Judicial review time limits are strict. The general rule is that you must apply promptly and in any event within three months of the date of the decision. However, shorter time limits apply in specific contexts:

• Planning cases: Six weeks from the decision
• Procurement: 30 days in some cases
• Immigration: Usually three months, but specific rules apply to certain categories

Do not delay seeking legal advice if you believe you have grounds for judicial review. Missing the time limit will almost certainly result in your application being rejected unless there are exceptional circumstances for the delay.

Judicial review is expensive and complex. Before proceeding, consider:

• Have you exhausted all other complaint and appeal routes? Courts expect claimants to use alternative remedies before resorting to judicial review.
• Do you have a realistic legal argument? Disagreeing with a decision is not a legal ground for judicial review.
• Can you afford it? Judicial review cases can cost tens of thousands of pounds if unsuccessful. Consider whether legal aid is available in your case.

Legal aid is available for judicial review in some circumstances — particularly immigration and asylum cases, housing cases, and cases involving fundamental rights. Contact a specialist public law solicitor or a legal aid firm for a free initial assessment. Law centres and Citizens Advice can help you identify suitable lawyers.

Judicial review is not simply a matter of issuing a claim form. Understanding the procedural steps — particularly the mandatory pre-action protocol — can save significant time and cost, and may result in the public body reconsidering its decision without full proceedings ever being necessary.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review: Before issuing judicial review proceedings, you must (except in urgent cases or where a limitation period is about to expire) send a Letter Before Claim to the defendant public body. The letter must: identify the claimant and the decision being challenged; summarise the legal basis of the challenge; state the remedy sought; and request a response within 14 days (or 21 days if the matter is not urgent). The public body must reply using the prescribed form, either agreeing to reconsider or defending its position. This exchange is mandatory — courts look unfavourably on claimants who issue judicial review without first following the protocol. Importantly, many public bodies reconsider decisions at this stage and a full judicial review can be avoided.

The permission stage: Judicial review does not go straight to a full hearing. After you file the claim form (N461), the court conducts a permission stage — a paper review by a single judge to decide whether your case has arguable grounds. Most judicial review applications are refused permission at this stage. If permission is refused, you may renew the application at an oral hearing. Only if permission is granted does the case proceed to a full substantive hearing. This gatekeeping function exists to filter out weak or misconceived challenges before they consume court time and the public body's resources.

Ombudsman complaints as an alternative: In many cases, a complaint to the appropriate ombudsman is a more effective, cheaper, and faster route than judicial review. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) can investigate government department and NHS decisions; the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can investigate council decisions; and other ombudsmen cover specific sectors. Ombudsmen have wide investigatory powers, can award compensation and recommend systemic changes, and their processes are free to complainants. Courts expect claimants to have used ombudsman routes where available before turning to judicial review.

Using your MP to accelerate resolution: Where a government department is involved, contacting your MP can sometimes unlock a faster reconsideration without the need for judicial review. MPs can put questions directly to ministers, request urgent meetings, and — for complaints about NHS services and government departments — refer matters to the PHSO. See our guide on complaining to your MP for more detail on how to use this route effectively.