Judicial review principles

Scope and application of judicial review

Judicial review is a process by which the courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of public functions by public bodies. CPR 54.1 states that:

'a "claim for judicial review" means a claim to review the lawfulness of–
•
an enactment or
•
a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.’

Judicial review proceedings in England and Wales normally take place in the Administrative Court, which is part of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. The Upper Tribunal also has a limited judicial review jurisdiction.

This subtopic focuses primarily on proceedings in the Administrative Court, providing a range of practical guidance materials on the relevant principles and procedures. It also contains guidance on the core principles, procedural steps and distinctive features of judicial review in the Upper Tribunal, as well as in Scotland.

Judicial review remedies are discretionary. The Administrative Court can make the following orders:

•
a quashing order (the effect of which the court has power to delay, and the retrospective effect of which the court has power to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Greenhouse gas emissions under scrutiny in development consent order decision (R (Boswell) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and others)

Planning analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed the claimant’s appeal in which he sought a statutory judicial review of the Secretary of State (SoS)’s decision to grant permission for a gas power station with carbon capture and storage at Teeside. The appeal focused on three grounds, all concerned with the way the decision assessed and weighed in the balance the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development. These had been acknowledged to be significant for environmental impact assessment (EIA) purposes and had been given significant weight in the planning balance. The first ground alleged an internal logical flaw in the SoS’s reasoning; the second alleged that the SoS had erred in her interpretation or application of a paragraph of the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS); and the third alleged that the SoS failed to reach a reasoned conclusion since she failed to assess the significance of the GHG emissions against a benchmark or other adequate means of contextualisation. All three grounds were rejected in decisive terms by the court. Written by Harriet Townsend KC, barrister, at Cornerstone Barristers.

Wild Justice files application for judicial review of Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Wild Justice, a conservation group, filed an application for judicial review in the High Court on 11 June 2025, challenging a claim made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, in April 2025 that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would not reduce environmental protections. Wild Justice argues that Rayner failed to provide a legal rationale for her statement and intends to challenge it on the grounds that it is either legally incorrect or irrational. The challenge, supported by a legal opinion from expert planning barristers, contends that the Bill weakens existing environmental protections by removing the requirement to prove—beyond reasonable scientific doubt—that a proposed development will not adversely affect a protected site. The Office for Environmental Protection, named as an interested party in the claim, has also criticised the Bill, describing it as a ‘regression’ for environmental protections in law.

ECtHR rules inadmissible Article 2 complaint about refusal of Northern Ireland ‘legacy’ inquest (Dalton v UK)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled inadmissible an application brought against the UK by Rosaleen Dalton. She had argued that the refusal of a fresh inquest into her father’s death in an IRA bombing in 1988 was a breach of Articles 2 and 13 of the ECHR.