JUDICIAL REVIEW & REGULATORY CHALLENGES
Public law asks whether a decision was lawful, not simply whether it was unpopular
Judicial review is the High Court procedure used to challenge the lawfulness of decisions, actions or failures to act by public bodies and others exercising public functions. It is generally a remedy of last resort: an adequate statutory appeal, review or complaints route should be considered before proceedings are issued.
Time limits
A judicial review claim must ordinarily be filed promptly and in any event within three months after the grounds first arose. Some categories have materially shorter statutory limits. The parties cannot extend CPR 54.5 time by agreement, so pre-action correspondence must never be allowed to cause a deadline to expire.
Pre-action protocol
The Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol is intended to identify the issues, exchange relevant information and documents, consider ADR and avoid unnecessary proceedings. A focused letter before claim should identify the decision, proposed grounds, relief sought and information required.
Grounds of challenge
Potential grounds include illegality, procedural unfairness, irrationality, failure to take relevant considerations into account, taking irrelevant considerations into account, legitimate expectation and incompatibility with Convention rights. The available grounds depend on the statutory scheme and facts.
Permission and evidence
Judicial review normally begins with a permission stage. The claim form and evidence must identify all material facts and explain any alternative remedy. Disclosure is not automatic in the ordinary civil-litigation sense, but public authorities are subject to a duty of candour once proceedings are properly engaged.
Regulatory investigations
Regulatory work often overlaps with criminal exposure, professional discipline, licensing, disclosure obligations and reputation. A response that is tactically sensible in one forum can create difficulty in another. We therefore consider the sequence of interviews, written responses, document production, internal investigations, parallel police enquiries and appeal rights before committing a client to a position.
Frequently asked questions
Can I wait three months before starting judicial review?
No. The rule requires a claim to be filed promptly as well as within the outer three-month period. Delay can be fatal even where three months has not expired.
Does sending a letter before claim stop time running?
No. The Pre-Action Protocol expressly does not alter the CPR 54.5 time limit. Protective issue may need to be considered where the deadline is approaching.
Can judicial review overturn a decision because the judge would have decided differently?
Not ordinarily. Judicial review is concerned with legal error and the lawfulness of the decision-making process rather than a general appeal on the merits.
What remedies can the court grant?
Depending on the case, the court can grant mandatory, prohibiting or quashing orders, declarations, injunctions and, where the legal requirements are met, damages alongside another public-law remedy.
Can urgent interim relief be sought?
Yes in an appropriate case. The application must set out the material facts, urgency, legal basis and interim order required. A claimant seeking urgent relief still has to comply with the procedural duties applicable to judicial review.
What should I send for an initial review?
Send the decision, reasons, statutory or policy material relied upon, correspondence, appeal/review information, chronology and any immediate deadline. If the decision affects a licence, employment, liberty, immigration status, business or other urgent interest, identify that consequence clearly.
Current CPR 54 requires ordinary judicial-review claims to be brought promptly and generally within three months; some planning, procurement and other statutory challenges have shorter limits. The precise route should always be checked against the decision being challenged.