Korean translation. This page is translated from the canonical English version for general information. UK legal terms do not always translate exactly — check the English source for legal decisions and seek professional advice for important matters. The English page is authoritative.

Administrative & Public Law

Updated 2026-04-09

Statutory Appeal vs Judicial Review

When to use a statutory right of appeal and when judicial review is the appropriate remedy for challenging a public body's decision.

Overview

When a public body makes a decision that adversely affects you, there are two main legal routes to challenge it: a statutory appeal (where Parliament has created a specific appeal right) and judicial review (the supervisory jurisdiction of the Administrative Court). The existence of an adequate alternative remedy — particularly a statutory appeal — will usually preclude judicial review.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Statutory Appeal

Cost: Varies — often free (tribunal) to £528 (Court of Appeal permission)

Time: Weeks to months depending on tribunal

Pros

Merits review — the appellate body can examine whether the decision was correct on the facts and the law
Usually faster and cheaper than judicial review
Specific expertise — specialist tribunals understand the subject matter
Costs rules may be more favourable (no costs in some tribunals)

Cons

Only available where Parliament has created the right — not all decisions are subject to appeal
Grounds of appeal are prescribed — limited to what the statute permits
Time limits are often short (21–56 days)
Permission requirement in many appeals

Best For

Immigration decisions, planning decisions, employment appeals, social security appeals, and any decision where a specific statutory appeal route exists.

Judicial Review

Cost: £154 permission fee + £770 full hearing fee; legal costs can be very significant

Time: 6–18 months from issue to final hearing

Pros

Available where no adequate alternative remedy exists
Broader grounds — illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, legitimate expectation, proportionality, HRA breach
Can challenge primary legislation compatibility with the ECHR (declaration of incompatibility under HRA 1998, s.4)
Powerful remedies including quashing orders, mandatory orders, injunctions

Cons

Does not examine the merits — only the lawfulness of the process
Expensive: court fees £154 (permission) + £770 (full hearing); legal costs £5,000–£30,000+
Strict 3-month time limit (promptness required)
Court will refuse if adequate alternative remedy exists

Best For

Cases where no statutory appeal exists, where the decision-maker has acted outside their powers (ultra vires), or where there is a systemic challenge to policy or legislation.

Key Differences

AspectStatutory AppealJudicial Review

Type of reviewMerits review — was the decision correct?Lawfulness review — was the process lawful?

AvailabilityOnly where Parliament has created the rightGeneral supervisory jurisdiction — available for any public body

Alternative remedy ruleN/A — IS the alternative remedyCourt will refuse if adequate statutory appeal exists

CostUsually lower — free in many tribunalsHigh — fees and legal costs

SpeedUsually fasterTypically 6–18 months

OutcomeCan substitute its own decision for the originalUsually quashes and remits — does not substitute its own decision

Our Recommendation

Always exhaust any statutory appeal route before considering judicial review — the Administrative Court will almost always refuse permission if an adequate alternative remedy exists. Only apply for judicial review if no adequate appeal route exists, if the statutory appeal does not cover the legal grounds you wish to raise, or if there is a systemic challenge to policy or legislation. Legal aid may be available for judicial review — check with the LAA.