Judicial Review Journey
The procedure for challenging the lawfulness of a public body's decision or action in the Administrative Court, from pre-action protocol letter to substantive hearing and remedies.
Who Uses This Journey
Individuals, NGOs, and businesses seeking to challenge decisions of public authorities (government departments, local authorities, courts, regulators, and other public bodies) that are alleged to be unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair.
Stage-by-Stage Timeline
Pre-Action Protocol Letter
Before issuing judicial review proceedings, you must send a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the public body (defendant). The letter must: identify the decision challenged, set out the legal grounds, and give the public body 14 days to respond (3 months in planning cases). The body must send a formal PAP response.
- Sending a vague PAP letter — must identify specific legal grounds clearly
- Forgetting that the 3-month limitation period keeps running during PAP
- Not keeping a copy of the PAP letter and response
Issue Claim Form (N461)
If the public body does not act satisfactorily, issue the judicial review claim in the Administrative Court using Form N461. The claim must be filed within 3 months of the decision challenged (strictly enforced; 6 weeks for planning, immediately for some immigration cases). Includes: grounds of review, relief sought, and supporting evidence.
- Copy of the decision being challenged
- PAP letter and defendant's response
- Detailed Statement of Facts and Grounds
- All relevant correspondence and documents
- Statement from claimant
- Missing the 3-month deadline — courts rarely extend time
- Not identifying a specific legal ground (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, breach of HRA)
- Not establishing 'standing' (sufficient interest in the matter)
Acknowledgement of Service (21 days)
The defendant (public body) must file an Acknowledgement of Service using Form N462 within 21 days. It must state whether they intend to contest the claim and their summary grounds of resistance. This is not a full defence at this stage.
- Public body failing to file — court may consider claim on papers without any opposition
- Claimant forgetting that even if no AoS is filed, they still need to argue their grounds
Permission Stage
A judge considers the papers and decides whether to grant permission for judicial review to proceed. The test is whether the claimant has an 'arguable' case. Permission can be refused on the papers, in which case the claimant can request an oral renewal hearing.
- Permission granted — proceed to substantive hearing
- Permission refused — claimant can renew orally within 7 days
- Permission refused at oral hearing — claimant can seek leave to appeal to Court of Appeal (if arguable)
- Settled before permission
- Not renewing after paper refusal within 7 days
- Failing to address the specific reasons for paper refusal in the oral renewal
Substantive Hearing
The substantive hearing is before a High Court judge (sometimes two judges). Both parties file detailed skeleton arguments and bundles. The claimant's counsel opens, the defendant responds, and claimant replies. The hearing typically lasts 1–3 days. Judgment may be reserved.
- Agreed bundle of documents
- Skeleton argument (filed 21 days before hearing for claimant; 14 days for defendant)
- Authorities bundle (list of cases relied on)
- Any updated witness statements
- Claim allowed — declaration, quashing order, mandatory order, prohibiting order, injunction
- Claim dismissed
- Remitted to public body for fresh decision
- Not filing the skeleton argument on time — courts take this very seriously
- Exceeding the skeleton argument page limits without permission
Relief and Remedies
If the judicial review succeeds, the court grants one or more public law remedies: quashing order (certiorari — sets decision aside), mandatory order (mandamus — orders body to act), prohibiting order (prohibition — stops unlawful action), declaration, or injunction. The court may also award costs and, in rare cases, damages.
- Quashing order — decision set aside; body must reconsider
- Mandatory order — body required to take specific action
- Declaration — court declares the legal position
- Damages (only if there is an independent cause of action)
- Assuming a successful JR means the claimant gets what they originally wanted — the body may reach the same decision lawfully on reconsideration
- Not enforcing a mandatory order if the body fails to comply