Judicial Review

Judicial review is a powerful legal tool that allows individuals and organisations to challenge the legitimacy of public authorities’ decisions, actions, or omissions. However, judicial review proceedings are complicated and require expert legal representation for a successful outcome.

At Civil Litigation Lawyers, we specialise in providing strategic legal support for clients seeking to challenge unfair decisions. Whether you are facing a judgement that seems irrational, illegal, or procedurally flawed, we are here to assist you through every step of the process, ensuring that your case is presented with the utmost skill and precision.

Contact Us
Everything You Need to Know about Judicial Review

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review is a legal process through which the actions or decisions of public bodies and authorities can be challenged in court. It is a fundamental mechanism in the UK’s legal system that ensures decisions are made fairly, legally, and justly.

Judicial review does not concern itself with the merits of a decision but rather focuses on the lawfulness of how the decision was made. This process is crucial for maintaining the balance of power between individuals and the state and for enforcing human rights.

It allows courts to review the actions of government agencies, local authorities, and other bodies performing public functions to ensure they act within their legal limits.

Scope of Judicial Review

The scope of judicial review is broad, encompassing a wide range of issues, including but not limited to:

  • Legality: Ensuring that the authority has acted within the legal powers and duties ascribed to it by law.
  • Fairness: Making certain that decisions are impartially based on a fair process.
  • Rationality: Ensuring that decisions are reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.
  • Proportionality: In certain cases, especially involving human rights, decisions must be proportionate to the aims they seek to achieve.

Through judicial review, the courts do not make or change policies, but they do ensure that laws are applied correctly and that public bodies do not abuse their powers.

Whether a local council’s planning decision, a government department’s policy implementation, or any action by a statutory tribunal, judicial review serves as a check on the power and decision-making of public institutions. 

It is a protective measure that can correct instances of unlawful decisions, ensuring that governance is carried out correctly and fairly.

Common Grounds for Judicial Review

Judicial review challenges are based on specific legal grounds demonstrating how a decision, action, or failure to act has deviated from the law. Here are the most common legal grounds for initiating a judicial review:

Illegality

This ground is invoked when a public body acts outside the scope of its legal authority or powers. A decision is illegal if the public body does not have the power to make it, misinterprets the law, applies the wrong legal test, or disregards relevant considerations.

Irrationality

A decision may be considered irrational, often referred to as “Wednesbury unreasonableness,” if it is so unreasonable that no appropriate authority could ever have reached it. This ground is challenging to prove as it requires demonstrating that the decision was not just poor or undesirable but so devoid of logic or moral standards that it defied comprehension.

Procedural Impropriety

Procedural impropriety occurs when the procedures required by law before making a decision are not followed or when the principles of natural justice are breached. This includes failure to consult those affected by the decision, not providing a fair hearing or a lack of bias in the decision-making process.

Proportionality

Proportionality is a ground for judicial review primarily used in human rights cases. A decision must be proportionate to the need it seeks to address. This means that the actions taken should be reasonable and necessary to achieve their objective and not excessive about the anticipated benefit. 

If you believe that a decision affecting you has failed these standards, it might be grounds for a judicial review. Our experts at Civil Litigation Lawyers can help you evaluate your case and pick the most suitable course of action based on these established legal frameworks.

The Judicial Review Process

Claiming judicial review involves several key stages, including:

1. Pre-action Stage

Before formally applying for judicial review, it is crucial to engage in pre-action correspondence. This involves sending a letter to the public body outlining why their decision is believed to be unlawful and specifying the corrective actions required.

This stage aims to resolve issues without court intervention and is guided by the Pre-action Protocol for Judicial Review, which sets out the issues the letter should address.

2. Permission Stage

If the pre-action response is unsatisfactory, the next step is to apply for permission to proceed with judicial review. This involves submitting a claim form and a detailed statement of facts and legal grounds to the court. The documents are prepared by legal representatives who ensure that all procedural requirements are met.

3. Review by a Judge

The submitted claim is reviewed by a judge who decides whether sufficient grounds exist for a judicial review. If the judge grants permission, the case proceeds to a full hearing. If permission is denied, there may be an opportunity to request a reconsideration at an oral hearing, particularly if the judge finds the claim arguable.

4. Final Hearing

If permission is granted, the case goes to a final hearing, where detailed arguments are presented before a judge. This stage focuses strictly on the lawfulness of the decision being challenged rather than the merits or desirability of the decision itself.

Who Can Initiate a Judicial Review?

Not everyone is eligible to bring a judicial review claim. The courts require claimants to demonstrate ‘standing,’ which means they must show a sufficient interest in the matter being challenged. Typically, standing is granted to individuals or organisations directly affected by a decision or whose interests are significantly impacted.

Criteria for Standing:

  1. Direct Impact: Individuals who are directly affected by a decision, such as being the subject of a government action or decision, are usually considered to have standing. This could include residents affected by local planning decisions or beneficiaries of a government policy who are adversely impacted by changes to that policy.
  2. Community Impact: Individuals or groups representing a community can claim standing if the decision in question broadly affects their community’s interests. This is often relevant in environmental or large-scale public resource cases where the outcomes extend beyond individual impacts.
  3. Organisational Interest: Organisations may have standing if they are interested in the challenge’s subject matter. For instance, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) focused on human rights, environmental protection, or legal aid may initiate judicial reviews if a decision affects their operational focus or the communities they serve.

By requiring standing, the courts ensure that those who make judicial review claims have genuine stakes in the outcomes. Thus, the process’s integrity is maintained, and the focus is on rectifying legal grievances.

We can help determine if you or your organisation has the standing to bring a judicial review, providing expert guidance and representation to navigate this complex legal terrain.

Dispute Lawyers- Re-application

Let Us Help You Submit a Judicial Review

If you believe that a decision made by a public body has affected you adversely and may not have been made lawfully, don’t hesitate to seek expert legal advice. 

Our team of highly experienced judicial review solicitors at Civil Litigation Lawyers is well-placed to help you assess the strength of your case and navigate the complexities of the judicial review process.

Whether you are dealing with issues related to the Crown Prosecution Service, local government, or any other public authority, we are here to provide robust legal support and representation. Contact us today to ensure your rights are defended and to challenge improper decisions. 

You Ask, We Answer

FAQs About Judicial Review

Judicial review is a procedure by which the courts oversee the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. It ensures that such decisions are made legally, fairly, and reasonably.

You generally have standing if you are directly affected by the decision or if you represent an organisation whose interests are impacted by the decision. If you’re uncertain, our solicitors can help determine your eligibility.

Judicial review claims must be brought quickly and certainly within three months of the judgement or action being challenged. However, specific cases may require action within much shorter time frames, such as 14 days in some instances.

Yes, the CPS’s decisions can be challenged through judicial review if they are deemed irrational or disproportionate, based on an error of law, or if they fail to act lawfully.

The pre-action protocol letter should clearly outline the basis for your challenge, including the specific issues with the decision or action, the desired remedy, and a clear indication that you will pursue judicial review if the matter is not resolved satisfactorily.

If the response is unsatisfactory or there is no response, you may proceed with applying for judicial review. This should be done with the assistance of a solicitor to ensure all procedural requirements are met.

500+
Successful Cases

How can we help?

We are determined to deliver proficient and personalised assistance that satisfies your legal aims. Our mission is to simplify and make the dispute process as easy as possible. Contact us today to clarify your circumstances and learn how we can assist you.