Judicial Review Solicitors
Judicial review is the most powerful tool available to challenge an unlawful decision by a public body. A solicitor who understands public law will identify whether the decision can be challenged — and pursue the claim in the High Court if it can.
Judicial review is the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court (Administrative Court) — the process by which the court reviews the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies exercising public functions. The grounds for judicial review are illegality (the body exceeded its powers), irrationality (the decision was perverse), procedural unfairness (the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to be heard), and incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. A successful judicial review typically results in the unlawful decision being quashed and the public body being required to remake it lawfully. A solicitor will advise on the merits of the claim, send the pre-action protocol letter, and manage the claim from permission application through to final hearing.
Judicial Review — Grounds, Process & Remedies
Judicial review — the legal grounds for challenge, the court process, and the remedies available on success.
Judicial review challenges are highly technical — both in establishing the legal ground of challenge and in navigating the court process. A solicitor will identify the strongest ground, manage the court process, and present the case compellingly at the permission stage and full hearing.
Illegality — the public body acted outside its legal powers
A decision is illegal where the public body exceeded the powers conferred on it by statute or acted for an improper purpose, failed to take into account a relevant consideration, took into account an irrelevant consideration, or acted under a misunderstanding of the law. For example: a local authority that refused planning permission citing a reason not permitted under planning law; a licensing authority that refused a licence citing grounds beyond those the legislation permits; or an immigration authority that applied the wrong legal test to an asylum application. A solicitor will identify the specific statutory or common law power the public body was exercising, assess whether the decision was within those powers, and challenge it where it was not.
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) — the decision was perverse
A decision is irrational where it is so unreasonable that no reasonable public body properly directing itself on the law and the facts could have reached it — the Wednesbury unreasonableness test. This is a high bar — the court does not substitute its own view for the public body's; it asks whether the decision falls outside the range of reasonable decisions open to a body in the public body's position. Where the decision is so extreme, so disproportionate, or so clearly contrary to the available evidence that no reasonable body could have reached it, the irrationality ground is established. A solicitor will assess whether the decision meets the irrationality threshold and, where it does, present the argument to the court with supporting evidence.
Procedural unfairness — the claimant was not given a fair hearing
Procedural unfairness (or a breach of natural justice) arises where the public body failed to give the claimant a fair opportunity to make representations before the decision was made, failed to give adequate reasons for the decision, was biased against the claimant, or failed to follow its own procedures. The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental principle of administrative law — every person affected by a decision has the right to know the case against them and to have a genuine opportunity to respond. Where a public body made a decision without consultation, without a hearing, or without giving reasons, those failures constitute procedural unfairness regardless of whether the substantive decision was correct. A solicitor will identify the specific procedural failure and challenge the decision on those grounds.
Human Rights Act 1998 — incompatibility with Convention rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right. The most commonly engaged rights in judicial review claims are: Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — in detention, healthcare, and housing cases); Article 5 (right to liberty — in detention and deprivation of liberty cases); Article 6 (right to a fair trial — in decisions affecting civil rights and criminal charges); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life — in family, housing, and immigration cases); and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights). A solicitor will identify the applicable Convention right, assess whether the public body's decision is incompatible with it, and pursue the Human Rights Act claim — which can result in an award of damages in addition to the quashing order.
Pre-action protocol — the required steps before issuing proceedings
Before issuing a judicial review claim, the claimant must (except in urgent cases) comply with the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol — sending a letter to the defendant public body setting out the claim, the grounds of challenge, and the remedy sought, and giving the public body 14 days to respond (or longer in complex cases). The pre-action letter is often the most important document in the judicial review process — many claims are resolved at this stage, either by the public body reconsidering its decision or by agreeing to a settlement. A solicitor will draft the pre-action letter, identify the legal grounds with precision, and give the public body a clear opportunity to resolve the matter before the cost of litigation is incurred.
Permission and the full hearing — managing the litigation
A judicial review claim begins with a permission application — the court must grant permission before the full hearing proceeds. Permission is granted where the claim is arguable and has a realistic prospect of success at the full hearing. Permission applications are usually decided on the papers (without a hearing), but the claimant can request an oral renewal of a refused permission application. Where permission is granted, the case proceeds to a full hearing before a High Court judge — typically 1–3 days. A solicitor will prepare the claim form and grounds, manage the permission application, prepare the witness evidence and skeleton arguments for the full hearing, and represent the claimant in the High Court — either directly or by instructing counsel.