Request Legal Service Get Help

Public Law & Judicial Review

Public Law & Judicial Review Solicitors — Challenging Unlawful Government, Council & Public Body Decisions

Judicial review is the mechanism by which the courts hold public bodies — central government, local councils, NHS bodies, regulatory authorities, immigration tribunals, and quangos — to account for unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair decisions. Where a public body acts outside its legal powers, fails to consider relevant matters, fetters its discretion, or breaches natural justice, judicial review provides the remedy: quashing the decision, compelling the body to reconsider, and in appropriate cases awarding damages. A specialist public law solicitor identifies whether a decision crosses the judicial review threshold, issues the pre-action letter, and manages the Administrative Court proceedings.

CPR Part 54 — JR procedure 3-month time limit Illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness Pre-action Protocol for JR
⚠️ Judicial review must generally be brought within 3 months of the decision — and in some areas (planning, procurement) within 6 weeks. The 3-month clock starts from the date of the decision, not from the date the claimant became aware of it. The Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review requires a letter before claim — typically 14 days — which must be sent before the 3-month deadline. A solicitor instructed promptly can issue the letter before claim and protect the JR application within time.

Our Public Law Services

⚖️

Judicial Review

Challenging unlawful decisions of public bodies in the Administrative Court. Grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural unfairness — including central and local government, NHS bodies, regulators, and immigration authorities.

Learn more →
🏛️

Council Decision Challenges

Challenging local authority decisions — housing, social care, planning, homelessness, and licensing — through judicial review, statutory appeal, and LGO complaint. Holding councils to their legal duties.

Learn more →
🤝

Community Care Disputes

Challenging unlawful care assessments, cuts to care packages, NHS Continuing Healthcare refusals, and deprivation of liberty under the Care Act 2014 and Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Learn more →
📢

Public Body Complaints & Failure to Act

Challenging public bodies' failure to carry out their statutory duties — through ombudsman complaints, statutory enforcement, and judicial review of refusals to act. NHS, local authority, and regulatory failures.

Learn more →
🔍

Inquests & Public Body Accountability

Representing families at coroner's inquests involving state and public body involvement — NHS deaths, detention deaths, and Article 2 ECHR inquests — and pursuing accountability through Prevention of Future Deaths reports and civil claims.

Learn more →

How Public Law & Judicial Review Works

⚖️
The three grounds of judicial review — judicial review challenges a public body's decision on three main grounds: Illegality — the decision-maker acted outside the powers conferred by statute (ultra vires), or misinterpreted the law; Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness, now proportionality in HRA cases) — the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it; and Procedural unfairness — the decision-maker failed to give a fair hearing, failed to consult where consultation was required, failed to give adequate reasons, had a conflict of interest, or breached legitimate expectation. A solicitor analyses the decision against all three grounds before advising on the prospects of a successful JR application.
📝
The Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review — before issuing a JR claim, the claimant must send a Letter Before Claim (LBC) to the defendant public body — typically giving 14 days to respond (3 days for urgent cases; 7 days in immigration cases). The LBC sets out the proposed grounds of challenge, the facts, the decision challenged, the remedy sought, and the claimant's contact details. The public body must respond within the deadline — setting out whether the decision is reconsidered and, if not, the grounds for maintaining it. A well-drafted LBC frequently achieves the desired outcome without proceedings — public bodies often reconsider on receipt of the LBC. A solicitor drafts the LBC to maximise the prospects of resolution before the Administrative Court stage.
🏛️
The Administrative Court — CPR Part 54 — where the LBC does not resolve the matter, the claimant files a claim form (N461) in the Administrative Court within the time limit. The first stage is the permission stage: a single judge reviews the claim on the papers and grants permission if the claim is arguable. Permission can also be sought on an oral renewal if refused on the papers. Once permission is granted, the case proceeds to a full hearing — typically before a High Court judge. The court can: quash the decision; make a declaration; order the public body to reconsider; grant an injunction; and (in some cases) award damages (particularly in HRA cases where Convention rights are engaged). A solicitor manages every stage — from the permission application through the substantive hearing.
⚡
Urgent and interim relief in judicial review — where the public body's decision has immediate harmful consequences and the full JR cannot be heard quickly enough, the claimant can apply for interim relief — typically an injunction to prevent the public body from acting on its decision until the JR is determined. Interim relief is available on short notice (often the same day in urgent cases) and requires the claimant to demonstrate: an arguable case; a real risk of serious harm if the decision is implemented; and that the balance of convenience favours an injunction. A solicitor advises on whether interim relief is available, files the urgent application, and appears before the Administrative Court at short notice — including out of hours where the threat is immediate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between judicial review and a statutory appeal?

A statutory appeal is a right of appeal specifically created by Parliament — for example, the right to appeal a planning decision to the Planning Inspectorate, or a school exclusion to the Independent Review Panel. Where a statutory appeal is available, judicial review is not the appropriate route — the court will refuse permission for JR where an adequate alternative remedy exists. Judicial review is the residual remedy: it applies where there is no adequate statutory appeal. Some decisions can be challenged both by statutory appeal (on the merits) and by JR (on grounds of illegality) — for example, where the appeal route only allows challenge on certain grounds and JR covers additional grounds. A solicitor advises on which route is appropriate for the specific decision — and ensures that the correct time limit is observed for whichever route is used.

How long does judicial review take?

The Administrative Court's timescales vary: the permission stage (on the papers) typically takes 6–12 weeks from filing; if permission is refused and the claimant seeks an oral renewal, the oral hearing typically follows within a further 6–12 weeks; once permission is granted, the substantive hearing is typically listed 6–12 months after the permission grant. In urgent cases, the permission stage can be compressed significantly — oral permission hearings can be obtained within days, and substantive hearings listed within weeks. Legal aid is available for judicial review in certain public law cases — and for cases involving deprivation of liberty, immigration, and community care, legal aid funding is more readily available. A solicitor advises on the timetable and the availability of legal aid or other funding.

Can I get legal aid for judicial review?

Legal aid is potentially available for judicial review through the Civil Legal Aid scheme — subject to a means test and a merits test. The merits test requires that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success (at least 50%). The areas most likely to attract legal aid for JR include: housing and homelessness (LASPO 2012 Sch 1 Part 1 para 35); community care and social care (para 19); immigration (para 25); special educational needs (para 15); and deprivation of liberty (para 6). In areas where legal aid is not available (for example, general planning judicial review), the claimant must fund the case privately — and a solicitor advises on the costs risks and the prospects of obtaining a Protective Costs Order (PCO) or Costs Capping Order (CCO) to limit exposure.

What remedies can the Administrative Court award in judicial review?

The Administrative Court can award the following public law remedies: (1) Quashing Order — quashing (setting aside) the unlawful decision; (2) Mandatory Order — requiring the public body to carry out its legal duty; (3) Prohibiting Order — preventing the public body from acting unlawfully; (4) Declaration — declaring the rights of the parties or the lawfulness of the decision; (5) Injunction — preventing the public body from acting pending the JR. In addition, where the unlawful decision breached the claimant's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, the court can award damages. JR damages are not available for most public law grounds alone — but are available in HRA cases where the claimant's Convention rights (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 14 of the ECHR) were breached. A solicitor advises on which remedies are available in the specific case.

Can the LBC resolve the matter without court proceedings?

Yes — frequently. The Pre-action Letter Before Claim (LBC) puts the public body on formal legal notice that its decision is challenged and sets out the grounds in detail. Many public bodies — particularly local authorities and NHS bodies — will reconsider their decision on receipt of a well-drafted LBC, rather than face the cost and publicity of Administrative Court proceedings. The LBC is therefore one of the most cost-effective tools in public law practice: it achieves the desired outcome (reconsideration; reversal of the decision) without the cost of full JR proceedings. Even where the public body does not reconsider, the LBC response often reveals the public body's full reasoning — which can strengthen the JR application. A solicitor drafts the LBC to maximise the pressure on the public body and the prospects of resolution at the pre-action stage.

How It Works

One clear request. A public law solicitor holds the government or council accountable for its unlawful decision.

No upfront cost. A specialist public law solicitor reviews the public body's decision, identifies the grounds of challenge, issues the pre-action letter, and manages the Administrative Court proceedings — to quash the unlawful decision and achieve the outcome the law requires.

Submit Your Request
1

Tell us about the decision

Describe the public body's decision — the authority that made it, the date, the harm it causes, and any deadline you face (3 months from the decision is the standard JR time limit).

2

Matched to a specialist

We connect you with a specialist public law solicitor experienced in judicial review of local government, NHS bodies, central government, and regulatory authorities.

3

Decision challenged

Your solicitor reviews the decision, issues the pre-action letter, applies for permission, and manages the substantive JR hearing — to quash the unlawful decision and obtain the remedy the law provides.

Public Law & Judicial Review

Public bodies must act within the law. When they don't, a specialist solicitor holds them to account.

From judicial review of government decisions and council housing, social care, and planning challenges through community care disputes, NHS Continuing Healthcare appeals, public body failure to act complaints, coroner's inquest representation, and Article 2 ECHR accountability — a specialist public law solicitor challenges every unlawful decision and obtains every available remedy.

Submit Your Request

Explore Public Law & Judicial Review

Latest Articles

Quick Links