Judicial Review

Judicial Review (JR) is a High Court procedure to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies — councils, government departments, the NHS, regulators, and some private bodies exercising public functions. Grounds include illegality (acting outside legal powers), irrationality (a decision no reasonable decision-maker could make), and procedural unfairness. JR is not an appeal on the merits; the court does not substitute its own decision. Claimants must apply for permission promptly and in any event within 3 months of the challenged decision (shorter for planning and procurement). Legal aid is potentially available for JR claims. Costs risk is significant — losing claimants may be ordered to pay the public body's legal costs. A common first step is a pre-action protocol letter, which gives the public body 14 days to reconsider before proceedings are issued. JR is a remedy of last resort — other challenge routes (tribunal appeals, ombudsman referrals) should usually be exhausted first.

What it means in practice. Judicial review asks whether a decision was lawfully made, not whether it was the right decision. If the court finds a public body acted unlawfully it will usually quash the decision and send it back to be retaken properly — which means the same outcome can lawfully be reached again, this time by a fair route. That is why judicial review is powerful where the process was defective, a policy was misapplied, a mandatory consultation was skipped, or a body simply had no power to do what it did, and much weaker where you simply disagree with a judgement call.

A worked example. A council withdraws a disabled resident's care package after a review carried out without speaking to him, without a written assessment, and without considering the impact on his wellbeing. His solicitor sends a pre-action protocol letter setting out the failures and giving the council fourteen days to respond. The council reinstates the package and agrees to carry out a lawful reassessment. No claim is ever issued. Most successful judicial reviews end exactly like this, at the pre-action stage, because a public body that is shown a clear illegality would rather fix it than defend it.

Common pitfalls. Delay is the first killer: a claim must be brought promptly and in any event within three months, and "promptly" can mean less than three months. Costs risk is the second — an unsuccessful claimant can be ordered to pay the public body's costs, so get advice about legal aid, cost capping, and after-the-event insurance before issuing. Third, courts expect alternative remedies to be used first, so a claim brought while a statutory appeal or ombudsman route is still open will usually be refused permission.

How it relates to other terms. Where a statutory appeal exists, use it: benefits decisions go through Mandatory Reconsideration and then a tribunal, and employment disputes go to the Employment Tribunal. Maladministration by a public body without illegality is the province of an ombudsman such as the LGSCO or PHSO, which is free and carries no costs risk. Procedure is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules.

What to do next. Read our judicial review basics guide to test whether your case is really about legality, then the judicial review process in detail for the pre-action protocol and time limits. In most situations, start instead with escalating your complaint, which is free and far quicker.