Request Legal Service Get Help

Judicial Review

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

Judicial review (JR) is the High Court procedure by which individuals, companies, and organisations challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies — including ministers, government departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, regulators, professional bodies, and the immigration tribunal. JR is not an appeal on the merits: it is a challenge to the legality of the decision-making process. The Administrative Court can quash the decision, order reconsideration, grant injunctions preventing implementation, and award damages where Convention rights were breached. A specialist public law solicitor assesses the prospects, issues the Pre-action Protocol letter, and manages the Administrative Court proceedings within the strict 3-month time limit.

CPR Part 54 — JR procedure 3-month time limit from decision Illegality, irrationality & unfairness HRA 1998 — Convention rights
⚠️ Judicial review must be filed within 3 months of the decision — 6 weeks for planning decisions; 30 days for procurement challenges. The Pre-action Letter Before Claim must be sent before the claim is filed — typically 14 days before — which must happen within the 3-month window. Late claims require the court's permission to extend time. A solicitor should be instructed as soon as possible after the decision to ensure the time limit is protected.

Judicial Review — Key Grounds & Cases

📜
Illegality — acting outside legal powers — a decision is illegal where the decision-maker: acts outside the powers conferred by the statute under which they are acting (ultra vires — GCHQ case [1985]); misinterprets the law and applies the wrong legal test; takes into account irrelevant considerations or fails to take into account relevant ones; fetters its discretion (applying a blanket policy and refusing to consider individual circumstances); or unlawfully delegates a decision to someone not empowered to make it. Illegality is the most powerful ground of JR — if the decision-maker applied the wrong legal test, the decision is unlawful regardless of what the correct decision might have been. A solicitor analyses the public body's statutory powers and the decision-making process to identify illegality.
🎯
Irrationality — Wednesbury unreasonableness & proportionality — under traditional judicial review, a decision is irrational where it is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it" (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]). The irrationality test has evolved in HRA cases: where Convention rights are engaged, the court applies the more stringent proportionality test — asking whether the interference with the right was "necessary in a democratic society" and no more than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim. Proportionality requires closer judicial scrutiny than Wednesbury — and is available wherever the ECHR is engaged. A solicitor advises on whether proportionality or Wednesbury applies and frames the irrationality argument accordingly.
🤝
Procedural unfairness — natural justice & legitimate expectation — procedural unfairness arises where the decision-maker: failed to give the claimant a fair hearing (including the right to be heard, the right to know the case against them, and the right to respond); had a real risk of bias (the rule against bias — Pinochet (No. 2) [2000]); breached the claimant's legitimate expectation — either that a procedure would be followed (procedural legitimate expectation) or that a substantive outcome would be achieved (substantive legitimate expectation — R v North and East Devon HA ex parte Coughlan [2001]); or failed to give adequate reasons for the decision. Legitimate expectation is one of the most powerful grounds in modern public law — and arises wherever a public body has made a clear and unambiguous representation on which the claimant has relied. A solicitor identifies legitimate expectation arguments before advising on the JR prospects.
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
Human Rights Act 1998 — Convention rights in judicial review — where the public body's decision interferes with a Convention right — Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (liberty), Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life), or Article 14 (non-discrimination) — the JR applies the enhanced proportionality standard and, where the right is breached, the court can award damages. HRA s.6 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right — and s.7 gives a person the right to bring proceedings against the public authority. The most common HRA grounds in JR are: Article 8 (housing and family life; care decisions removing or reducing family contact); Article 5 (detention — DoLS/LPS challenges); and Article 2 (failures by NHS and public bodies to protect life). A solicitor advises on the ECHR dimensions of the JR challenge and the damages available.
🏗️
Planning judicial review — TCPA 1990 & s.288 TCPA appeal — planning decisions (including planning permissions, local plan adoptions, and enforcement notices) can be challenged in the Planning Court (a specialist division of the Administrative Court) by: s.288 TCPA 1990 statutory appeal — challenging the Planning Inspector's decision (within 6 weeks); s.289 TCPA 1990 appeal against enforcement notice decision (within 28 days); or JR — challenging the local planning authority's decision to grant or refuse planning permission (within 6 weeks of the decision). Third parties (neighbours, campaign groups) can also challenge permissions by JR — on grounds including failure to comply with the development plan, EIA errors, and natural justice failures. A solicitor advises on planning challenges and manages the Planning Court proceedings within the short time limits.
🌍
Immigration judicial review — Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) — judicial review of immigration decisions (refused leave to remain, deportation orders, refusal to revoke deportation, unlawful detention, and asylum decisions) is heard in the Upper Tribunal (UTIAC) rather than the Administrative Court. The Upper Tribunal has the same JR jurisdiction as the Administrative Court for immigration matters. The time limit is 3 months (or promptly in most cases). A solicitor advises on immigration JR grounds — including Article 8 (private and family life), human trafficking, statelessness, unlawful detention, and delays. Where the client is detained, urgent bail and interim relief applications can be made on short notice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the realistic prospects of a judicial review succeeding?

The first stage is the permission stage — the judge must be satisfied that the claim is "arguable" (has a real prospect of success). Around 30–40% of JR claims are refused permission on the papers; many of those are renewed orally and some succeed at that stage. Of claims that receive permission, around 30–40% succeed at the substantive hearing. However, the resolution rate before the substantive hearing is high — many JRs settle after permission is granted, when the public body agrees to reconsider. The most important predictor of success is the quality of the legal analysis at the outset: a solicitor who correctly identifies a strong ground of illegality (wrong legal test applied) achieves a much higher success rate than a generalised "unreasonableness" challenge. The Pre-action LBC alone achieves a resolution in a significant proportion of cases, without the need for court proceedings at all.

What is the judicial review time limit and can it be extended?

The standard time limit for judicial review is 3 months from the date of the decision (CPR Part 54.5). Special time limits apply: 6 weeks for planning decisions; 30 days for procurement challenges. The clock starts from the date of the decision, not from the date the claimant became aware of it. The court can extend time "where there is good reason to do so" (CPR 54.5(2)) — but extensions are not readily granted and the court requires a compelling explanation for the delay. A solicitor should be instructed as soon as possible after the decision. Even if time has passed, a solicitor can advise on whether the reasons for delay are sufficient to support an extension application.

Can a company or organisation bring a judicial review?

Yes — any person, company, or organisation with "sufficient interest" in the matter to which the application relates can bring a JR (Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3)). Sufficient interest (standing) is broadly interpreted. Companies regularly bring JR against: regulatory decisions affecting them; government policies affecting their industry; procurement decisions; and competition-related decisions. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) bring JR as public interest challenges — where the unlawfulness affects a wider class of people. Campaign groups have successfully challenged planning decisions, immigration policies, and environmental decisions by JR. A solicitor advises on whether the claimant has standing and whether a public interest JR is appropriate.

What is the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review?

The Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review requires the claimant to send a Letter Before Claim (LBC) to the defendant public body before filing the JR claim — giving the public body an opportunity to reconsider its decision. The LBC must: identify the decision challenged; set out the facts; identify the proposed grounds of challenge; specify the remedy sought; and give the public body 14 days to respond (3 days in urgent cases; 7 days in immigration cases). The public body's response must: acknowledge the LBC; confirm whether the decision is reconsidered; and if not, set out its grounds for maintaining the decision. Failure to comply with the Protocol (without good reason) can result in a costs penalty at the conclusion of the proceedings. A solicitor drafts the LBC in terms that put maximum pressure on the public body to reconsider — and that, if it does not, form the foundation of the strongest possible JR application.

Can I get interim relief — a temporary stop — while the judicial review is heard?

Yes — the Administrative Court can grant interim relief — typically an injunction preventing the public body from acting on its decision — while the JR proceeds. Interim relief is available on an urgent basis, sometimes within hours of the application. The test for interim relief is the American Cyanamid test: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) damages would not be an adequate remedy; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. The claimant must give an undertaking in damages (agreeing to compensate the defendant for any loss caused by the injunction if the JR fails). In HRA cases involving life, liberty, or serious physical integrity, the court will more readily grant interim relief. A solicitor advises on whether interim relief is available and applies urgently where the threat is immediate.

How It Works

One clear request. A judicial review solicitor challenges the unlawful decision and achieves the remedy the law provides.

No upfront cost. A specialist JR solicitor analyses the public body's decision against all three grounds — illegality, irrationality, and procedural unfairness — drafts the Pre-action Letter Before Claim, applies for permission, and manages the substantive hearing — within the strict 3-month time limit.

Submit Your Request
1

Tell us about the decision

Describe the public body's decision — the date, the authority that made it, the harm it causes, and any steps already taken. Include the date of the decision — the 3-month clock is running.

2

Matched to a specialist

We connect you with a specialist judicial review solicitor experienced in Administrative Court proceedings against local government, central government, NHS bodies, regulators, and immigration authorities.

3

JR issued and run

Your solicitor drafts the Pre-action LBC, applies for permission, seeks interim relief where urgent, and manages the substantive JR hearing — to quash the unlawful decision and obtain every available remedy.

Judicial Review

When the government, council, or public body gets it wrong, the Administrative Court can put it right — a specialist solicitor makes that happen.

From illegality and irrationality grounds through procedural unfairness, legitimate expectation, HRA Convention rights, planning JR, procurement challenges, immigration JR in the Upper Tribunal, urgent interim relief, and public interest challenges — a specialist judicial review solicitor challenges every unlawful decision and obtains quashing orders, mandatory orders, declarations, injunctions, and HRA damages.

Submit Your Request

More Public Law & Judicial Review Topics

View all →

Latest Articles

Quick Links