What is Judicial Review?
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is a legal process that allows individuals or groups to challenge the decisions, actions, or inaction of public authorities in the UK. This process enables the courts to examine whether a government department, local council, or other Public Authorities have acted lawfully, fairly, and reasonably in their decision-making.
The Purpose of Judicial Review
The main purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public bodies do not exceed their legal powers or act in ways that are unjust. It acts as a crucial check on government and other public authorities, making sure they follow the law and respect the rights of individuals. If you believe a public body has made a decision that is unfair or unlawful, judicial review provides a way to hold them accountable.
Why Judicial Review Matters
Judicial review is important for ordinary people because it offers a route to challenge government decisions that may seem unfair or improper. Whether it’s a planning decision by your local council, a change to your benefits, or an immigration ruling, judicial review gives you the right to ask a court to review the lawfulness of these actions. This helps to maintain transparency and fairness in public administration.
To learn more about your options and the broader process of challenging official decisions, see our guide on how to challenge government decisions.
Judicial Review vs. Other Legal Challenges
Judicial review is different from other types of legal challenges, such as appeals or complaints. Unlike an appeal, which asks a higher authority to reconsider the facts or merits of a decision, judicial review focuses on whether the correct legal procedures were followed and whether the decision was made within the powers granted by law. It does not usually involve reconsidering the facts of the case, but rather whether the decision was made lawfully, rationally, and fairly.
How Judicial Review Fits into the UK Legal System
In the UK, judicial review is handled by the Administrative Court, a specialist part of the High Court. The process is governed by strict rules and time limits, so it’s important to act quickly if you want to bring a claim. The court can decide whether a public authority’s decision should be overturned, changed, or sent back for reconsideration.
For authoritative guidance on how judicial review works in practice, including the steps involved and what the courts consider, visit Judicial Review on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. This resource explains how judges assess the lawfulness of public body decisions and provides practical information for those considering a judicial review.
Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law in the UK, ensuring that government and public authorities are answerable to the courts and, ultimately, to the people they serve.
When Can You Use Judicial Review?
Judicial review is a legal process that allows individuals to challenge the decisions or actions of public bodies in the UK courts. However, it is only available in specific circumstances and for certain types of decisions. Understanding when you can use judicial review is essential if you believe a public authority has acted unfairly, unlawfully, or outside its powers.
What Decisions Can Be Challenged?
Judicial review is used to challenge decisions, actions, or failures to act by public bodies that carry out public functions. Typical examples include:
- Local councils (e.g., planning decisions, housing allocations, or cuts to services)
- Government departments (e.g., immigration or asylum decisions)
- Regulatory bodies (e.g., Ofsted, the Environment Agency)
- NHS trusts and hospitals (e.g., refusal of treatment or funding)
- Police and prison authorities
These bodies are collectively known as Public Authorities, and their powers and responsibilities are defined by law.
Common Situations Suitable for Judicial Review
People often use judicial review to challenge:
- Unfair or unlawful council decisions, such as refusing housing support or failing to provide special educational needs assistance
- Refusals or delays in granting immigration or asylum applications
- Decisions to stop or reduce welfare benefits
- Unlawful exclusions from school or public services
- Unfair disciplinary actions by public sector employers
For a more detailed explanation of the grounds for judicial review – such as illegality, procedural unfairness, and irrationality – see this Judicial Review guide.
What Judicial Review Cannot Be Used For
Judicial review is not a way to appeal against a decision simply because you disagree with it. It is not about whether the decision was right or wrong, but whether the public body followed the law, acted fairly, and stayed within its powers. Judicial review cannot be used to:
- Challenge decisions made by private individuals or companies
- Dispute decisions where another specific appeal process exists (for example, most benefits decisions have their own appeals tribunals)
- Seek compensation for damages or losses (although the court can quash a decision or order the authority to reconsider)
Time Limits: Act Quickly
Strict time limits apply to judicial review claims. In most cases, you must apply promptly and, in any event, no later than three months after the decision you wish to challenge. For some matters, such as planning decisions, the deadline can be as short as six weeks. It’s crucial to check the relevant local authority decision timeframes to avoid missing your opportunity to bring a claim.
Which Public Authorities Are Covered?
Judicial review covers a wide range of public bodies and officials performing public functions. For a comprehensive overview of which organisations and decisions fall under this process, refer to the Public Authorities section.
Where Are Judicial Reviews Heard?
Judicial review claims are usually heard in the Administrative Court, which is part of the High Court. This court specialises in overseeing the lawfulness of decisions made by public authorities.
If you believe you have grounds for judicial review, it’s important to seek legal advice as soon as possible due to the strict time limits and complexity involved. Judicial review is a powerful tool for holding public bodies to account, but it is only available in specific situations and should be used appropriately.
How Does Judicial Review Work?
Judicial review is a legal process that allows individuals or organisations to challenge the decisions or actions of public bodies, such as government departments, local councils, or regulatory authorities. Here’s a step-by-step overview of how judicial review works in the UK, what the court considers, and what outcomes you might expect.
Step-by-Step Overview of the Judicial Review Process
- Identifying a Decision to Challenge
Judicial review applies to decisions made by public authorities that may be unlawful, procedurally unfair, or unreasonable. Before considering judicial review, it’s important to check if there are other ways to resolve the issue, such as appeals or complaints procedures. - Pre-Action Protocol
Before starting a claim, you usually need to send a ‘pre-action letter’ to the public body, setting out your concerns and giving them a chance to respond. This is an important step and can sometimes resolve the issue without going to court. - Filing a Claim
If the issue isn’t resolved, you can apply to the High Court for permission to proceed with a judicial review. The application must be made promptly, and usually within three months of the decision you want to challenge. For more detailed guidance on this stage, see our guide on how to start the judicial review process. - Permission Stage
The High Court will first decide if your case can go forward. The judge reviews your application to see if there is an arguable case. If permission is refused, you may be able to request an oral hearing to reconsider. - The Full Hearing
If permission is granted, the case moves to a full hearing. Both sides present their arguments, usually based on written evidence and legal submissions. The court does not re-examine the facts but focuses on whether the public body acted lawfully.
The Role of the High Court
Judicial review cases are heard in the High Court. The High Court’s role is not to decide whether the original decision was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but whether the public body acted within the law, followed fair procedures, and made a reasonable decision. For a broader explanation of the High Court’s role in judicial review, visit High Court.
What the Court Considers
The court will look at three main issues:
- Legality: Did the public body act within the powers given to it by law?
- Procedural Fairness: Was the process fair? For example, did the decision-maker follow proper procedures and give affected parties a chance to be heard?
- Reasonableness: Was the decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it? This is sometimes called ‘irrationality’.
Possible Outcomes of Judicial Review
If the court finds in your favour, it can:
- Quash the Decision: The court can set aside (quash) the original decision, meaning it has no legal effect.
- Order Reconsideration: The court can require the public body to reconsider the decision, following proper procedures or legal principles.
- Make a Declaration: The court can declare what the law is or how it applies to the case, clarifying the rights and obligations of the parties.
The court does not usually substitute its own decision for that of the public body but can require the authority to make the decision again, this time lawfully.
Costs and Risks
Bringing a judicial review can be expensive. If you lose, you may have to pay not only your own legal costs but also those of the public body. There are some protections, such as cost-capping orders in certain cases, but it’s important to get legal advice about the risks before proceeding. Legal aid may be available in limited circumstances, depending on your financial situation and the nature of your case.
Judicial review is a powerful tool for holding public bodies to account, but it is complex and comes with costs and risks. If you are considering a claim, make sure you understand how to start the judicial review process and seek professional advice if needed. For more detailed background, you can also read about the role of the High Court in judicial review cases.
Judicial Review and Human Rights
Judicial review plays a vital role in protecting your human rights when you are affected by decisions made by government departments, local councils, or other public bodies. If you believe a decision has breached your rights – such as the right to a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, or freedom from discrimination – judicial review allows you to ask the courts to examine whether the public authority acted lawfully and fairly.
Many human rights in the UK are set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires public bodies to respect and protect these rights in everything they do. If a government decision appears to violate one of these rights, you may be able to challenge it through judicial review. For example, judicial review has been used to challenge decisions about immigration, housing, education, healthcare, and policing where individuals argued that their rights under the Human Rights Act had not been properly considered.
Some typical human rights issues addressed through judicial review include:
- Right to a fair trial: If a public authority makes a decision without giving you a proper opportunity to present your case.
- Right to private and family life: If a decision affects your home life, family relationships, or personal privacy.
- Freedom of expression or assembly: If authorities restrict your ability to speak out or protest.
- Freedom from discrimination: If a public body treats you unfairly because of your race, gender, disability, or other protected characteristic.
Judicial review and human rights claims are closely linked, but they are not always the same. Judicial review is the process by which the court checks whether a public authority has acted lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. A human rights claim, on the other hand, focuses specifically on whether your rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 have been breached. In many cases, you can raise a human rights issue as part of a judicial review, but sometimes it may be more appropriate – or even necessary – to bring a standalone human rights claim, especially if your complaint is purely about a breach of your rights rather than the broader lawfulness of a decision.
For example, if a local authority makes a decision that both fails to follow fair procedures and breaches your right to family life, you might raise both issues in a judicial review. However, if the main problem is a direct violation of your human rights (such as discrimination), you may need to consider a separate human rights claim.
Understanding when to use judicial review, a human rights claim, or both can be complex. The procedures and remedies may differ, so it’s important to seek advice if you’re unsure which route is best for your situation. For a deeper look at how judicial review works in the UK legal system, see judicial review in English law – Wikipedia. To learn more about your rights and how they are protected, visit the Human Rights Act 1998 overview.
Alternatives and Related Legal Options
When considering how to challenge a decision made by a government department or public authority, judicial review is not always your only option. In many cases, there are alternative legal routes that may be quicker, more appropriate, or required before judicial review can be considered. Understanding these alternatives can help you choose the best way to resolve your issue.
Tribunal Appeals
For many types of decisions – especially those involving benefits, immigration, education, or planning – there is often a specific right to appeal to a tribunal. Tribunals are independent bodies that review decisions made by public authorities. If a tribunal appeal is available, you usually need to use this process first, as judicial review is generally only possible if there is no suitable alternative. You can find more about this distinction and when a tribunal appeal might be the right step in resources like tribunal appeals and on our dedicated page about tribunal appeals.
Making a Claim Against a Public Body
If your issue is not suitable for judicial review or a tribunal appeal, you may be able to make a claim against a public body. This could involve seeking compensation for damages or losses caused by the actions or negligence of a government department or authority. Claims can be based on breach of statutory duty, negligence, or even discrimination. The process and requirements will depend on the nature of your case and the type of public body involved.
Appealing Specific Government Decisions
Some government decisions have their own dedicated appeal processes. For example, if you disagree with a decision made about your Child Benefit, there is a specific process for appealing Child Benefit decisions. You can find a step-by-step guide to Child Benefit appeals that explains how to challenge HMRC’s decision and what support is available.
Choosing the Right Option
You should always check if there is a specific appeal process or tribunal available for your type of case before considering judicial review. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort and is only available if there are no adequate alternative means of challenging a decision. As highlighted by the British Institute of Human Rights, judicial review can only be used where there are no better ways of challenging a decision, such as a separate right of appeal.
If you are unsure which route applies to your situation, it may help to look at the legislation governing the public body’s powers. For example, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 sets out rules for public access to certain meetings, and breaches of these rules might be challenged through different legal mechanisms.
When to Use Alternatives Instead of Judicial Review
You might choose an alternative to judicial review if:
- There is a specific right of appeal or statutory process designed for your type of case (such as a tribunal or benefit appeal).
- You are seeking compensation or damages, which judicial review cannot provide.
- The alternative route is likely to be quicker, less costly, or more accessible.
Sometimes, you may need to use more than one route – such as appealing a decision and then seeking judicial review if the appeal process does not resolve your issue or is itself unfair.
Exploring all available options ensures you take the most effective and appropriate action for your circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice to understand which process best fits your needs.
Where to Get More Help
If you are thinking about challenging a decision made by a government department, local council, or another public authority, it’s important to get the right advice and support as early as possible. Judicial review is a complex area of law, and strict time limits usually apply – often as little as three months from the date of the decision you want to challenge. Acting promptly can make a real difference to your options.
Finding Legal Advice and Support
Before starting a judicial review, it’s wise to seek expert legal advice. A solicitor experienced in public law can help you understand whether you have grounds to bring a case, what the process involves, and what outcomes you might expect. They can also advise you on alternatives to judicial review, such as making a complaint or using an ombudsman scheme.
For authoritative guidance on how judicial review works and what the courts look for, you can visit the official Judicial Review page from the UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. This resource explains how judges review the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies and outlines the steps involved in bringing a case.
If you want to understand more about the court system, including the role of the Administrative Court in handling judicial review cases, the Oxford LibGuides provide a clear overview of how the UK legal system works.
Consumer Rights and Holding Authorities Accountable
Sometimes, judicial review overlaps with consumer rights – especially if a public authority has made a decision affecting your rights as a service user or consumer. Understanding your rights can help you decide the best way to challenge unfair treatment.
For a deeper look at the legal protections available to consumers, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out key rules on fairness and accountability, which may be relevant if your case involves goods, services, or contracts with public bodies.
If you’re unsure whether your issue is best dealt with through judicial review or consumer law, you can find more help about a consumer issue, including practical advice on your rights and options if you believe a public authority has acted unfairly.
Act Quickly and Seek Expert Help
Remember, judicial review is subject to tight deadlines, and the process can be challenging without expert help. If you think a public authority has made an unlawful or unfair decision that affects you, don’t delay – contact a solicitor or legal adviser as soon as possible. They can guide you through your options and help you take the right steps to protect your rights.
