Judicial review is the legal route for challenging decisions made by public bodies in England and Wales — but it is one of the most widely misunderstood areas of civil litigation, because it is not a mechanism for arguing a decision was simply wrong. It is a challenge to whether the decision was made lawfully, and the distinction genuinely matters.
What judicial review actually challenges
Judicial review allows individuals, businesses and other groups to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by government ministers, government departments, local authorities, regulators and other public bodies exercising a public function. Cases of this kind are heard in the Administrative Court, which also has a specialist Planning Court for planning-related challenges. Importantly, judicial review is not an appeal against the decision on its merits — a court cannot simply substitute its own view of what the “right” outcome should have been because it disagrees with the public body.
What a court is actually looking for
A judge examining a judicial review claim considers whether the public body followed the law correctly in reaching its decision — for example, whether it acted within its legal powers, followed a fair process, took relevant considerations into account (and ignored irrelevant ones), and reached a decision that was not so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have made it. If the court finds the decision was not made lawfully on grounds like these, it can declare the decision unlawful or quash it. In most cases the court cannot substitute its own decision in place of the public body’s — the usual outcome instead is that the original decision-maker has to reconsider and remake the decision, this time following the correct legal process.
The strict time limit
Judicial review claims are subject to one of the tightest time limits in English civil procedure. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a claim form must be filed promptly, and in any event no later than three months after the grounds to bring the claim first arose. Crucially, “promptly” is a genuinely separate and stricter requirement from the three-month backstop — a claim brought within three months is not automatically treated as in time if it could reasonably have been brought sooner. This time limit cannot be extended by agreement between the parties, and some specific types of challenge, such as most planning judicial reviews, have an even shorter statutory time limit of six weeks. Given how unforgiving this deadline is, anyone considering a judicial review needs to start moving — including sending a formal pre-action letter — as early as possible, not once the three-month mark is already approaching.
The pre-action protocol for judicial review
Before a claim is issued, there is a specific pre-action protocol for judicial review that sets out the steps parties are normally expected to take first — principally, sending the public body a formal letter before claim setting out the decision being challenged and the grounds, and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond or reconsider before proceedings are issued. Skipping this step without good reason can count against a claimant later, including on costs, even if the claim itself later succeeds.
The permission stage
A judicial review claim does not go straight to a full hearing. It must first pass a “permission” stage, at which a judge considers the papers and decides whether the claim is arguable enough to proceed to a full hearing. Many claims are filtered out at this early stage. This two-stage structure — permission, then a substantive hearing only if permission is granted — is one of the features that distinguishes judicial review procedurally from most ordinary civil claims.
Who can bring a claim, and against whom
A claimant generally needs “sufficient interest” in the matter being challenged, though this is interpreted fairly broadly and can extend beyond someone directly affected — some charities and campaign groups have successfully brought judicial review claims on issues within their area of work. The claim itself must be against a body exercising a public function. This usually means central government departments, local authorities, NHS bodies, regulators and similar public organisations, though in some circumstances a private body carrying out a genuinely public function can also be challenged. A purely private, commercial decision by a private company is generally outside the scope of judicial review, however unfair it might feel — a different legal route, such as a contract or negligence claim, would usually be the correct one instead.
FAQs
Can I use judicial review just because I disagree with a decision?
No. Judicial review only succeeds where the decision-making process itself was unlawful in some way — for example, an unfair procedure, an irrelevant factor being taken into account, or a decision no reasonable body could have reached. Simply disagreeing with the outcome is not, on its own, a ground for judicial review.
What happens if I win a judicial review claim?
The usual outcome is that the unlawful decision is quashed, and the original decision-maker is required to reconsider and remake it correctly. The court does not normally substitute its own preferred outcome — it sends the decision back to be made properly.
Do I need to act quickly even if I’m still gathering information?
Yes. Because “promptly” is judged as a separate requirement from the three-month limit, waiting until close to the deadline before taking any action — including sending a pre-action letter — can itself count against a claim, even if it is technically still within three months.