Menu
Skip to content If you want to bring a judicial review claim or if you work for a public body that is threatened with one, hiring specialised judicial review solicitors in UK right away can make all the difference.
Contact our judicial review solicitors at 02033844389. Our expert assistance is just one click away.
"*" indicates required fields
The process of judicial review lets a person question whether or not a public body’s choice is legal.
A judicial review is a type of legal challenge where an individual asks the High Court or Upper Tribunal to review the lawfulness of a decision, action, or failure to act of a public body or government department. It can also be used to challenge secondary legislation, immigration rules or policy, or the compatibility of an act of Parliament with the Convention rights under the ECHR.
This can only be used where there is no avenue of appeal or where all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. It is different from a statutory appeal because the court should not normally substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision, it will only decide if the decision made was lawful.
The judicial review process challenges the way a decision has been made and whether in fact the correct laws and procedures were used to reach that decision. The Judicial Review’s function is not to determine whether the outcome was necessarily correct.
Our lawyers know how important it is to make sure that the government is held responsible. Talk to us about public law problems, and we’ll walk you through the process.
When someone asks for a judicial review, the court will decide if a public body followed the law. It’s an important solution that lets people demand responsibility. It gives people who are negatively affected by public bodies’ choices a way to question whether those decisions are legal.
We work for large companies, government agencies, and people, and we know how to bring and defend claims. Additionally, we work with you from the start to quickly figure out what the main issues are and what your main concerns are. This lets us give you clear, focused, strategic, and business-driven help and handle your case.
We know how important it is to have the right tone and presentation, and we also know how stressful a court claim can be for people who are already very busy. Here are a few areas where we can help you.
Normally a person who wishes to challenge a decision of the Home Office should write first to the department asking for the decision to be reviewed. This is called the pre-action protocol (PAP)
PAP letters and the responses to them should be carefully considered and drafted by a knowledgeable expert. This is a good opportunity to prevent judicial review proceedings from being brought at all, either by re-making the decision in the applicant’s favour (where appropriate) or by setting out clearly the reasons for maintaining the existing decision.
Speak to our assessment team now to confirm your eligibility and options for free on 02033844389.
If a person wants a judicial review of a decision then an application must first be made before the Upper Tribunal or High Court for permission. This should be done as soon as possible, but normally no longer than 3 months from the date of the decision, although the courts can decide to accept applications after that time limit. The person who brings a claim for judicial review is known as the claimant (applicant in the Upper Tribunal) and the person against whom the judicial review is brought is the defendant (the respondent in the Upper Tribunal), normally the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) but it can be an Immigration Officer or Entry Clearance Officer when their decision is being challenged.
References in the remainder of this document are to claimants and defendants but apply equally to applicants and respondents. The claimant sets out the grounds of their claim includes any evidence they wish to rely on, and asks for permission to be granted. Once received by the Upper Tribunal or High Court the application is ‘sealed’ by the court. This means the court stamps the application to show it has been received. The papers must then be served on GLD who will in turn notify the Home Office in cases progressing through High Court or directly on the Home Office in Upper Tribunal cases. Additionally, the Upper Tribunal Rules do not formally require service of the sealed claim form although letters issued by the Upper Tribunal do inform applicants that they must do this.
Once the grounds have been served on GLD or the Home Office, there are 21 days to file a paper response to the claim, this is known as an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). The AoS allows the Home Office to confirm whether it accepts the claim detailed in the judicial review or whether we wish to contest the claim. If we are contesting the claim the AoS, will include our summary grounds of defence (SG) and any evidence the Home Office wishes to rely on as to why the claim should not be granted permission to proceed. Once the court receives these documents a single judge will look at the papers and decide whether or not to grant permission. The test for granting permission is whether the judge thinks the claim is arguable. This is a low threshold.
However, a significant majority of claims which are not settled pre-permission are refused permission to proceed. If the judge does not think the claim is arguable, the judicial review will be refused permission to proceed. Both parties are then notified of this decision by means of a court order. If permission is refused, the judge may also certify the claim as being ’totally without merit’. This is added when the judge considers the claim is completely hopeless. Moreover, a ‘totally without merit’ finding stops the claimant from renewing their Page 7 judicial review to an oral permission hearing, but they may appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal.
If the judge does consider the claim to be arguable, he or she will grant permission. In this circumstance, the case will proceed to a full substantive hearing. In either case, both parties are notified of the judge’s decision by means of a court order.
In some cases, the judge will not be able to reach a decision on whether permission should be granted on the basis of the paper documents before him. In these circumstances, an oral permission hearing (OPH) will be ordered.
Also, if permission is refused on the papers a claimant has 7 days plus 2 working days for postage (High Court) and 9 days (Upper Tribunal) in which they can ‘renew’ the application to an OPH. This time period can be abridged to a shorter period if the application is deemed urgent. If so, this will be stated on the Order refusing permission on the papers.
At an OPH the claimant (normally via their legal representatives) before a single judge will explain why they should be granted permission and the Home Office will be given an opportunity to explain why permission should not be granted. The Home Office will instruct a barrister (counsel) to argue why permission should be refused. The Upper Tribunal or High Court will then decide whether permission should be granted. A claim that is certified as being ‘totally without merit’ cannot be renewed to an OPH.
Sometimes an OPH is heard at the same time as the substantive hearing and this is called a rolled-up hearing. This is more likely to happen where one party has made an application for the case to be expedited (ie heard sooner).
A rolled-up hearing has the advantage of getting the matter dealt with quickly and in practice is cheaper than the two-stage process. However, it does not allow for much time to prepare the substantive defense. At a rolled-up hearing, the judge will decide whether to grant permission as well as decide the outcome of the judicial review if permission is granted.