Q&As

What are considered the leading cases on 'adequate alternative remedy' in judicial review proceedings?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Jamas Hodivala of Matrix Chambers
Published on LexisPSL on 12/12/2018

The following Public Law Q&A produced in partnership with Jamas Hodivala of Matrix Chambers provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • What are considered the leading cases on 'adequate alternative remedy' in judicial review proceedings?

What are considered the leading cases on 'adequate alternative remedy' in judicial review proceedings?

Judicial review is considered to be a remedy of last resort. Accordingly, the Administrative Court will not normally entertain a claim for judicial review if there is a 'suitable alternative remedy' available to the claimant. This may include a statutory right to appeal under CPR 52 and appropriate private law proceedings.

The ‘adequacy’ of an alternative remedy is an elusive concept. Whether or not an alternative remedy is suitable depends on all the circumstances. The principle was set out by Lord Bingham in Kay v Lambeth LBC at para [30]:

‘… [t]he principle that if other means of address are conveniently and effectively available to a party they ought to be used before resort to judicial review.’

There is no single test to determine when an alternative procedure is ‘adequate’, but rather a series of principles can be derived from the case law.

The Divisional Court stated in R (L) v Serious Fraud Office:

‘There is no fixed or definitive list of the alternatives that the court will consider sufficient. They may be judicial, but they need not be… The factors that the High Court will take into consideration include: the nature of the alternative remedy and in particular whether it is statutory and whether it was the intention of Parliament that it amounts to the

Popular documents