Judicial review is the legal process by which individuals or organisations can challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public authorities – typically central government departments or local authorities. Unlike an appeal, a judicial review does not question whether a decision was right or wrong in substance, but whether it was made lawfully and in accordance with proper procedure.

A judicial review challenges the way in which a decision was made if a party believes that it was irrational, illegal or unfair. It details whether the law has been followed and correctly applied, and the right procedures have been followed.

If the court finds the decision to be unlawful, it can nullify the original decision. This typically requires the public authority to reconsider the matter and make a new decision following the correct legal procedures.

The judicial review process can be particularly complex; therefore, it is recommended that anyone pursuing an application for judicial review has an advisor on their side. Annecto Legal helps clients gain access to the legal advice they need and puts them in contact with judicial review solicitors. We can also get you the litigation funding that you need for your case.

Grounds for judicial review

Judicial review is concerned not with the merits of a decision, but with whether the decision was made lawfully. There are three core grounds traditionally recognised by the courts, as established in the seminal case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (commonly known as the GCHQ case). These are:

• Illegality – The decision-maker did not have the legal authority to make the decision or misapplied the law.
• Irrationality – The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it (known as Wednesbury unreasonableness).
• Procedural Impropriety – The decision-making process was unfair or did not follow legal procedures (e.g. a failure to consult or give reasons).

In addition, legitimate expectation and proportionality (particularly under the Human Rights Act 1998 and EU law) are increasingly recognised as separate grounds.

Application for judicial review

To apply for a judicial review, the claimant must demonstrate a sufficient interest or connection to the decision, action, or inaction being challenged. In most cases, this means showing that the decision has had a direct and personal impact on them.

Before a formal claim is issued, the claimant must usually follow the Pre-Action Protocol for judicial review. This involves sending a Letter Before Claim to the public body being challenged. The letter outlines the decision or action being disputed, the legal basis of the challenge, and what remedy is being sought. The public body typically has 14 days to respond (or less in urgent cases), and this step can sometimes lead to early resolution without the need to go to court.

Following this, the claimant must apply for permission to proceed from the court. This is done by submitting a Judicial Review Claim Form. In certain cases – such as when the challenge relates to a decision by the Upper Tribunal – the application must be made to the Administrative Court using a different procedure, and permission must be sought from the High Court instead.

Once the judicial review application is filed, a judge will examine it along with any supporting documents submitted as part of the permission stage. The judge will then decide whether the case raises arguable grounds and should progress to full judicial review proceedings.

If the judge refuses permission on the basis of the written application (commonly referred to as a refusal “on the papers”), the claimant may request an oral renewal hearing to have the decision reconsidered. However, if the judge concludes that the claim is “totally without merit”, the claimant loses the right to request a renewal and the decision stands.

Should permission be granted, the case will move forward to a substantive hearing. At this stage, a judge will review the legal and factual arguments in depth, considering whether the public authority’s decision was unlawful or procedurally unfair based on the evidence presented.

Remedies following a judicial review

In the event that a judicial review claim is successful, the judge may order a number of remedies in the form of orders. Some of the most common types of orders include the following:

• Quashing order – This undoes or overturns an action or decision that is under review, rendering it legally void.

• Prohibiting order – A prohibiting order prohibits a public body from taking an action or making a decision that has not yet taken place.

• Mandatory order – This order compels a public body to do something, such as remaking a decision with a specified period of time.

• Declaration – This is a statement of what the law is, where disputed.

• Damages – This orders a public body to pay damages; however, this is only available where some other forms of legal remedy are being sought.

If either party is unhappy with the outcome, they may seek permission to appeal to a higher court, such as the Court of Appeal. Permission must usually be granted either by the original judge or by the appeal court.

Judicial review for commercial cases

In recent years, judicial review has been increasingly used by businesses and commercial entities to challenge decisions made by public bodies and regulatory authorities, including:

• HMRC,
• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA),
• Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), and
• Industry trade associations.

Judicial review may also be used to challenge the procurement processes of public contracts—especially in cases where corruption, bias, procedural irregularities, or irrational decisions are alleged.

Businesses must, however, weigh the strategic advantages of judicial review against the costs, risks, and limited remedies involved. In appropriate cases—particularly where rights, licenses, or significant commercial interests are at stake—judicial review can be a powerful means of protecting business interests under public law.

Time limits for judicial review

The time limits for bringing a judicial review claim are strict and must be adhered to carefully, as failure to comply will usually result in the court refusing to hear the case, regardless of its merits.

In most cases, an application for judicial review must be made promptly, and in any event no later than three months from the date when the grounds for the claim first arose.

It is important to note that even if an application is filed within the three-month window, the court may still reject it if it was not brought promptly, especially where delay has caused prejudice or where urgency was required.

Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that public authorities act within their legal powers. While the process is technical and time-sensitive, it provides a powerful remedy for individuals seeking to challenge unlawful government action. Legal advice should be sought early, especially given the strict procedural requirements and short time limits.

How can Annecto Legal assist with an application for judicial review?

Annecto Legal supports clients in unlocking the value of their legal claims by connecting them with experienced professional advisors who can assist with their case. While we are not a firm of solicitors, our core values lie in facilitating access to legal representation by connecting clients with the right professionals and funding solutions.

Many individuals and smaller businesses may be deterred from pursuing a judicial review because of perceived financial risks. By providing funding and insurance options, Annecto Legal reduces this barrier and makes access to legal remedies more achievable for those with valid claims.

Judicial review cases can involve substantial legal costs, especially if the matter progresses to a substantive hearing. Annecto Legal helps client secure third-party litigation funding, which allows claimants to pursue their case without paying legal fees upfront.

In addition to funding, Annecto Legal can arrange After-the-Event (ATE) insurance, which protects claimants from the risk of having to pay the other side’s legal costs if the case is unsuccessful. This type of cover can be essential in judicial review matters where costs can quickly escalate.

Get in touch with an expert member of our team to find out more about judicial review and which litigation finance cover is the right litigation funding choice for you.