Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases
Produced in partnership with Morayo Fagborun Bennett of Hardwicke Chambers
Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases

The following Public Law practice note Produced in partnership with Morayo Fagborun Bennett of Hardwicke Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases
  • Time limits for bringing a judicial review claim
  • Acknowledgement of service
  • Response
  • Skeleton argument
  • Application for costs following settlement
  • Grounds for extension of time
  • Application for an extension of time in relation to any other time limits
  • Practical tips for the defendant to obtain an extension of time for filing an acknowledgement of service
  • Urgent cases (procedural tactics, likelihood of successful application for an extension of time and effect of proceedings)
  • More...

When a public body receives a claim form for judicial review, the first step is to consider whether the claim has been brought in time. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol.

Time limits for bringing a judicial review claim

Different time limits apply for certain types of judicial review claim:

  1. judicial review of decision of the Upper Tribunal must be brought within 16 days of notice of the Tribunal’s decision being sent

  2. public procurement cases must be brought within 30 days of when a claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged breach of the public procurement rules

  3. planning judicial reviews must be brought within 6 weeks of the grounds to make the claim arising

  4. all other judicial review claims must be brought promptly and in any event within three months of the date on which the grounds for bringing the claim first arose

There is a rebuttable presumption that a claim brought within 3 months has been brought promptly.

In public procurement cases:

  1. in Uniplex (UK) v NHS Business Services Authority the requirement to act promptly was found to be incompatible with the effective implementation of Directive 89/665/EEC. The national court was therefore required to extend the limitation period to ensure the claimant had a period equivalent to that which it would have had under the Directive

  2. time

Related documents:

Popular documents