Jack Castle

This Practice Note sets out some practical tips for a public body to consider during the decision-making process, with a view to reducing the risk of challenge by judicial review. Both robust decision-making processes and prompt handling of claims pre-action and through alternative dispute resolution will save time and costs downstream. This Practice Note also deals with the steps a public body can take to protect itself and includes a checklist of matters of good practice to help reduce successful permission applications.

This Practice Note sets out the general position on costs in judicial review proceedings with reference to some specific examples such as cases involving official bodies and immigration cases.

This Practice Note examines the duty of candour in judicial review, with a particular focus on the defendant’s obligations. All parties to judicial review proceedings are under a general duty of candour to disclose facts and information relevant to the proceedings. The general duty of candour places a particular burden on public authorities to evidence relevant information in order for the court to evaluate the facts, without being reminded to do so. Failure to disclose, even where the information will assist the claimant’s case, can lead to specific disclosure requests and affect the outcome of the case including punitive cost orders.

This Practice Note outlines the ground of judicial review usually known as legitimate expectation. It provides introductory guidance to when a legitimate expectation may arise, the types of legitimate expectation and whether and how a legitimate expectation may lawfully be frustrated.

This Practice Note explores the time limits for judicial review. In particular, it looks at the circumstances in which the Administrative Court has agreed to hearing cases that are out of time, allowing applications for extensions and the circumstances for urgent judicial review cases.