In English law, judicial review is the High Court’s supervision of public bodies to ensure that decisions are lawful, rational, procedurally fair and compatible with human rights. It is not an appeal on the merits: the court focuses on legality and process, leaving policy choices to public authorities unless the law has been misapplied.
Definition and Principles
Judicial review asks whether the decision-maker (i) acted within legal powers and for proper purposes, (ii) followed fair procedures, and (iii) reached a decision that meets the standards of rationality and, where relevant, proportionality. Legitimate expectations—created by clear promises or settled practices—must be respected unless there is good justification. Where Convention rights are engaged, Article 6 and Article 8–10 analyses often require a structured proportionality assessment. Public bodies must also comply with the duty of candour: all parties are obliged to place before the court the material facts and documents that fairly assist the court, including those that do not help their case. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Who Can Bring a Claim and What Can Be Reviewed?
A claimant needs a “sufficient interest” (standing) in the matter. The test is broad and context-sensitive, and can include representative or public-interest claimants. The defendant must be a public authority or a body exercising public functions; private law disputes belong elsewhere. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Procedure (Pre-action, Time Limits, Permission)
Before issuing, parties should follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review: exchange a detailed letter before claim and a reasoned response to narrow issues, consider disclosure, and explore resolution. A claim is then brought using the Part 54 procedure and proceeds in two stages: permission and, if granted, a substantive hearing. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Time limits are tight. A claim form must be filed promptly and in any event within three months of the date when the grounds first arose, unless a shorter statutory period applies (for example, many planning challenges have a six-week limit). Extensions are exceptional. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Grounds of Review (Illustrative)
Illegality: acting outside powers; taking into account irrelevant considerations; ignoring relevant ones; using a power for an improper purpose.
Procedural fairness: failing to consult where required; bias or apparent bias; not giving a fair opportunity to be heard.
Irrationality: a decision outside the range of reasonable responses in the public-law sense.
Legitimate expectation: departing from a clear promise or settled practice without sufficient justification.
Proportionality and human rights: where Convention rights or retained EU-law contexts apply, the court undertakes a structured balance between the aim pursued and the impact on rights.
Remedies
The court may grant quashing, prohibiting or mandatory orders, declarations and injunctions; damages are rare and usually arise only where another cause of action exists. Since 2022, the court also has a discretion to suspend a quashing order and/or limit its retrospective effect, allowing institutions time to correct defects without immediate disruption. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Important Limits and Developments
Alternative remedies matter: if an adequate statutory appeal or complaint route exists, the court may refuse judicial review. Some areas have shorter bespoke time limits (for example, planning) or different forums (for example, certain tribunal decisions reviewed in the Upper Tribunal). Parliament can restrict review by statute: the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 removed so-called “Cart” judicial reviews of Upper Tribunal permission refusals, and refined remedial powers. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
Practical Importance
For claimants, early work should pinpoint the precise legal error, gather the key documents, and meet the timetable. For defendants, the duty of candour requires a full, fair account of the decision-making process, not adversarial point-scoring. Both sides should address proportionality where rights are engaged and consider whether narrower relief (for example, a suspended quashing order) would resolve the unlawfulness with least disruption. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
See also: Proportionality; Legitimate expectation; Procedural fairness; Illegality; Standing; Time limits; Human Rights Act 1998; Planning statutory review.
