Factsheet #26:JudicialReview
Judi
ci
alrevi
ew i
s the procedure by whi
ch an i
ndi
vi
dualcan seek to chal
l
enge the pol
i
cy,deci
si
on,
acti
on or fai
l
ure to act of a publ
i
c body. Bodi
es whi
ch are am enabl
e to j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew i
ncl
ude
governm ent departm ents,l
ocalauthori
ti
es or other body exerci
si
ng a publ
i
c functi
on such as a CCG
or an NHS Trust.
Grounds ofJudicialReview and rem edies
A chal
l
enge agai
nst a publ
i
c body can be brought on a growi
ng num ber of grounds. The m ai
n
grounds ofchal
l
enge i
n m ost j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew cases are the fol
l
owi
ng:
Irrationality / unreasonableness – unreasonabl
eness i
s where the deci
si
on i
s so
“outrageous”or“absurd”thatno reasonabl
e body ofpersons coul
d have reached i
t. Thi
si
s
one ki
nd ofi
rrati
onal
i
ty – a m ore comm on exam pl
e ofan i
rrati
onaldeci
si
on i
s where the
deci
si
on m aker has fai
l
ed to ask hi
m sel
for hersel
fthe ri
ght questi
ons,has fai
l
ed to take
account ofal
lthe rel
evant consi
derati
ons or has taken account ofi
rrel
evant m atters.
Illegality – thi
si
s where a publ
i
c body:
o acts outsi
de ofi
ts powers.Thi
si
s known as acti
ng “ul
tra vi
res”;
o acts i
n breach ofa requi
rem ent under a parti
cul
ar statute. Thi
si
s the m ost comm on
type of i
l
l
egal
i
ty – for exam pl
e, a l
ocalauthori
ty m ay fai
lto arrange the speci
al
educati
onalprovi
si
on speci
fi
ed i
n a chi
l
d’
s EHC Pl
an, and thereby breaches the
requi
rem ents ofsecti
on 42 ofthe Chi
l
dren and Fam i
l
i
es Act 2014;
o unl
awful
l
yfetters i
ts di
screti
on – for exam pl
e,by usi
ng a bl
anket pol
i
cy when deci
di
ng
whether to carry out assessm ents wi
thout consi
deri
ng the m eri
ts ofeach i
ndi
vi
dual
case;
o Error ofl
aw – m eani
ng that the publ
i
c body has m i
sunderstood i
ts l
egalobl
i
gati
ons
and needs to be corrected i
ni
ts understandi
ng ofthe l
aw bythe court;
o Fai
l
ure to provi
de reasons for i
ts deci
si
on.
Proceduralim propriety – thi
si
ncl
udes a duty to act i
n accordance wi
th rul
es ofnatural
j
usti
ce and proceduralfai
rness and fol
l
ow proceduralrequi
rem ents. Speci
fi
c grounds under
thi
s headi
ng can i
ncl
ude:
o Bi
as – both actualbi
as (very rare) and appearance ofbi
as – as the l
aw requi
res
deci
si
on m aki
ng both to be fai
r and to be seen to be fai
r.
o Fai
rness – at i
ts m ost basi
c m eani
ng that two l
i
ke cases shoul
d be treated i
n the
sam e way.
o Legi
ti
m ate expectati
on – where a publ
i
c body says that i
t wi
l
lact i
n a parti
cul
ar way,
that representati
on m ay gi
ve ri
se to a l
egi
ti
m ate expectati
on that the publ
i
c authori
ty
wi
l
ldo as i
t sai
di
t woul
d and the court m ayenforce thi
s.
o Consul
tati
on – see separate factsheet on thi
s speci
fi
c duty.
Breach ofHum an Rights
o The vast m aj
ori
ty ofthe ri
ghts contai
ned i
n the European Conventi
on on Hum an
Ri
ghts are now part ofEngl
i
sh l
aw as a resul
t ofthe Hum an Ri
ghts Act 1998 and as a
resul
ti
ti
s unl
awfulfor a publ
i
c body not to act i
n accordance wi
th those ri
ghts. The
courts are m uch l
ess l
i
kel
y to al
l
ow an appl
i
cati
on for j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew whi
ch rel
i
es
sol
el
yon another hum an ri
ghts treatythat has not been i
ncorporated i
nto Engl
i
sh l
aw,
for exam pl
e the UN Conventi
on on the Ri
ghts ofthe Chi
l
d.
Judi
ci
alRevi
ews are heard i
n the Adm i
ni
strati
ve Court,a part ofthe Hi
gh Court,whi
ch si
ts i
nl
ocati
ons
across the country. Appeal
si
nj
udi
ci
alrevi
ew cases are heard by the Court ofAppealand then i
n the
m ost i
m portant cases by the Suprem e Court. Deci
si
ons of the Suprem e Court trum p al
l other
deci
si
ons; deci
si
ons ofthe Court ofAppealtrum p those ofthe Hi
gh Court.
Ifa j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew chal
l
enge i
s successful
,the court may:
m ake a m andatoryorder (i
.e. an order requi
ri
ng the publ
i
c bodyto do som ethi
ng);
m ake a prohi
bi
ti
ng order (i
.e. an order preventi
ng the publ
i
c bodyfrom doi
ng somethi
ng);
m ake a quashi
ng order (i
.e. an order quashi
ng the publ
i
c body'
s deci
si
on); or
i
ssue a decl
arati
on – a way i
n whi
ch the court can state what the l
aw i
s and how the publ
i
c
body has got i
t wrong wi
thout di
rectl
yi
nterferi
ng wi
th the deci
si
on. The publ
i
c body wi
l
lbe
expected to take necessarysteps to act i
n accordance wi
th the decl
arati
on.
The m ost comm on types ofrem edi
es are quashi
ng orders and decl
arati
ons. It i
s very rare that the
court wi
l
lm ake a m andatory order unl
ess there i
s real
l
y onl
y one l
awfulcourse ofacti
on open to the
publ
i
c bodyand i
t refuses to take that acti
on vol
untari
l
y.
In addi
ti
on,the court has powers to grant i
nteri
m rel
i
ef(requi
ri
ng som ethi
ng to happen /not to happen
pendi
ng a fi
naldeci
si
on). For exam pl
e,i
n a case where a fam i
l
y are argui
ng that thei
r chi
l
d i
s not
bei
ng provi
ded wi
th sui
tabl
e soci
alcare and that the l
ocalauthori
ty are therefore acti
ng unl
awful
l
y
under s2 Chroni
cal
l
ySi
ck and Di
sabl
ed Persons Act 1970,the court m i
ght order that som e soci
alcare
provi
si
on shoul
d be put i
n pl
ace on an i
nteri
m basi
s pendi
ng the fi
nalheari
ng ofthe cl
ai
m.
W hat types ofdecisions can be challenged?
In the context ofPart 3 ofthe Chi
l
dren and Fam i
l
i
es Act 2014; the fol
l
owi
ng types ofdeci
si
on coul
d be
chal
l
enged bywayofj
udi
ci
alrevi
ew:
•
•
•
•
•
Fai
l
ure to provi
de provi
si
on whi
ch i
s set out i
n the Pl
an (where there i
s an enforceabl
e
dutyto provi
de i
t);
The rati
onal
i
ty and /or l
awful
ness ofthe contents ofthe soci
alcare and heal
th secti
ons of
the Pl
an – as there i
s no ri
ght ofappealto the Tri
bunali
n rel
ati
on to these secti
ons;
Fai
l
ure to com pl
ywi
th duti
es under the LocalOffer – for exam pl
e regardi
ng i
ts contents or
fai
l
i
ng to consul
t;
Refusalto provi
de a personalbudget or award di
rect paym ents;
The use ofa pol
i
cyor el
i
gi
bi
l
i
tycri
teri
al
i
mi
ti
ng access to assessm ent or provi
si
on whi
ch i
s
arguabl
yunl
awful
.
In al
lcases however, j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew m ust be used as a l
ast resort and the court wi
l
lnot grant
perm i
ssi
on unl
ess i
t i
s sati
sfi
ed that there i
s no sui
tabl
e al
ternati
ve rem edy such as usi
ng the
com pl
ai
ntsprocess or appeal
i
ng to the Tri
bunal
.
Procedure and Tim e-lim its
Before an appl
i
cati
on for j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew can be i
ssued,the cl
ai
m ant has to com pl
y wi
th the pre-acti
on
protocolwhi
ch requi
res,where ti
m e perm i
ts,for the cl
ai
m ant to send a l
etter before cl
ai
m and al
l
ow
14 days for a response.
The cl
ai
m ant m ust then obtai
n “perm i
ssi
on” from the court to bri
ng the j
udi
ci
al revi
ew cl
ai
m.
Perm i
ssi
on i
s usual
l
ydeterm i
ned by a Judge consi
deri
ng the papers but som eti
mes an oralheari
ng i
s
requi
red. The test for perm i
ssi
on i
s whether the cl
ai
m ant has an arguabl
e case, and onl
y once
perm i
ssi
on has been granted,can you proceed wi
th the j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew.
It i
si
m portant to note that any j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew chal
l
enge m ust be brought prom ptl
y and i
n any event
within three m onths of the originaldecision being challenged. The court has a di
screti
on to
extend ti
m e where i
ti
s fai
r and j
ust to do so but i
t cannot be assum ed that thi
s wi
l
lhappen i
n any
parti
cul
ar case. It i
s therefore i
m portant to consi
der at an earl
y stage whether a form alcom pl
ai
nt to
the l
ocalauthori
tyand/or Om budsm an wi
l
lprovi
de a sati
sfactoryrem edy to the concerns or whether a
l
egalchal
l
enge bywayofa j
udi
ci
alrevi
ew i
s m ore appropri
ate.
Subj
ect to m eans and m eri
ts tests,l
egalai
di
s avai
l
abl
e to cover the l
egalcosts ofa Judi
ci
alRevi
ew
and further i
nform ati
on on l
egalai
di
s provi
ded i
n a separate factsheet.