Judicial Review: When and How to Use It

Judicial review is used when:

• A public body has made a decision affecting you (immigration, planning, education, housing, social care, benefits, prison, regulator).
• No other adequate remedy exists. JR is a "remedy of last resort" — if there is a statutory appeal, tribunal route, or alternative dispute resolution, use that first.
• The decision was unlawful — not merely unwise or unfair in a colloquial sense, but legally flawed.
• You act quickly — the 3-month limit is strict.

JR is NOT used for:

• Disputes between private parties (contract, tort) — use the County Court.
• Employment matters — use the Employment Tribunal.
• Most benefits decisions — use the Mandatory Reconsideration + Tribunal route.
• Appeals on the merits — JR is about legality, not whether the decision-maker got it right.

Three core grounds (from Lord Diplock's GCHQ judgment [1985]):

• Illegality — the public body acted outside its statutory powers (ultra vires), misinterpreted the law, fettered its discretion by applying a rigid rule, or failed to consider relevant matters.
• Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) — the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. A high bar.
• Procedural unfairness — denial of natural justice (right to be heard, right to an unbiased tribunal); failure to follow proper procedure prescribed by statute.

Additional/related grounds:

• Human Rights Act 1998 — the decision breaches a Convention right (Article 8 family life, Article 6 fair hearing, etc.).
• Equality Act 2010 public sector equality duty — failure to have due regard to discrimination.
• Legitimate expectation — the public body has gone back on a clear promise or established practice.
• Substantive review under proportionality — for HRA and EU-retained law cases, a stronger standard than Wednesbury.

The process under CPR Part 54:

1. Pre-Action Protocol letter — sent at least 14 days before issuing. Sets out the proposed claim, requests reconsideration, and seeks a "PAP response". The body must respond within 14 days.
2. Claim form (N461) — filed with the Administrative Court within 3 months of the decision. Must include: detailed grounds, witness statement, all relevant documents, time estimate.
3. Acknowledgement of Service — the defendant files within 21 days, with summary grounds.
4. Permission stage — a judge considers on the papers whether the claim is arguable. Decision usually within 6-12 weeks.
5. If permission granted, substantive hearing — 4-9 months after permission.
6. Hearing — usually 1-3 days.
7. Decision — usually reserved; written within 4-12 weeks.

Total typical timeline: 9-18 months from issue to decision. Urgent cases (eviction in days, removal in hours) can be expedited with interim relief.

JR is expensive:

• Your own costs — solicitors typically £150-£400/hour; a typical case has £15,000-£60,000+ in fees. Counsel (barrister) typically charges another £3,000-£20,000.
• Other side's costs if you lose — court orders the losing party to pay the winning side's costs. In standard JR, this can be £20,000-£100,000.
• Costs Capping Orders (CCO) — section 88 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Available in public interest cases. Limits costs exposure on both sides.
• Aarhus Convention claims — for environmental challenges. Costs are capped at £5,000 for individuals, £10,000 for organisations.
• Legal aid — available for some categories: housing/homelessness, immigration/asylum (means-tested), mental health detention, community care, and certain children's cases.
• Third-party funding — increasingly common via crowdfunding (CrowdJustice), litigation funders, or charitable support.

Public Law Project, Liberty, and JUSTICE provide free advice on whether your case is suitable for JR.

JR is used routinely in:

• Immigration and asylum — challenging Home Office decisions, certified claims, removal directions.
• Homelessness — challenging council homelessness duty decisions.
• Social care — challenging council care needs decisions, top-up policies, hospital discharge.
• Education — EHCP/SEND decisions (alongside tribunal), school admissions panel conduct.
• Mental health detention — alongside tribunal applications.
• Prison — challenging parole, segregation, prison transfers.
• Regulatory decisions — challenging Ofgem, Ofcom, FCA, etc.
• Government policy — high-profile JRs against government decisions (Brexit, climate, taxation).

JR is rarely used in: tax disputes (the Tax Tribunal handles these), employment (Employment Tribunal), benefit decisions (Mandatory Reconsideration plus Tribunal), or housing landlord-tenant matters (County Court or Tribunal).

JR remedies are discretionary — the court grants what is just in the circumstances. Available remedies:

• Quashing order — the unlawful decision is set aside. The most common outcome.
• Prohibiting order — preventing the public body from doing something. Used for ongoing or planned action.
• Mandatory order — requiring the public body to perform a duty. Often paired with a quashing order ("quash and re-take the decision lawfully").
• Declaration — statement about the legal position. Used where formal orders are not needed but the position must be clarified.
• Damages — only where there is a parallel cause of action (e.g. Human Rights Act damages under section 8, or under the law of negligence). JR by itself does not give damages.
• Interim relief — emergency orders pending the substantive hearing. Used to stop removal, possession, eviction.

Quashing usually means the decision is re-taken, properly this time — not that you automatically get the outcome you wanted. The lawful decision could still go against you. But it gives you another bite at the process.