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

UK Supreme Court announces appointment of Lord Sales as Deputy President

The UK Supreme Court has announced that His Majesty King Charles III has approved the appointment of Lord Sales as Deputy President of the Supreme Court. The appointment was made on the advice of the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, following the recommendation of an independent selection commission. Lord Sales will succeed Lord Hodge, who is retiring at the end of December 2025, and will take up the post in January 2026. The role of Deputy President involves working alongside the President to oversee the Court’s judicial work, undertaking leadership and ambassadorial responsibilities and engaging with parliamentarians, government, other UK courts and international judicial organisations.

CCS launches new transport technology open framework

The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) has announced the launch of RM6347 Transport Technology, which replaces the RM6099 Transport Technology & Associated Services agreement. The new open framework will go live on 4 November 2025 and is expected to run for a duration of 6 to 8 years. It is designed to support public sector organisations in procuring transport technologies across road, rail, aviation and urban transport systems.

PAC report finds government failures in civil service pension scheme administration

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has found that the Cabinet Office has failed to demonstrate effective management of the outsourced administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme, which covers 1.7 million members and liabilities of £189bn. The report identified persistently poor customer service under current administrator MyCSP, long delays in remedying age discrimination affecting thousands of pensioners, and serious risks to the transition of administration to Capita in December 2025, with key milestones already missed. It criticised the Cabinet Office’s weak contract oversight, limited enforcement of performance standards, and inadequate planning to ensure sufficient staffing and continuity of service. The PAC further raised concerns about the lack of union recognition during staff transfers, a restricted supplier market limiting value for money, and the absence of a clear strategy for future pension administration, recommending that the government consider bringing the scheme back in-house to safeguard service quality and accountability.

Judicial review costs in private prosecutions—a landmark decision (R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court)

Corporate Crime analysis: In R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court, the Divisional Court decisively overturned the principle established in Murphy v Media Protection Services (‘the Murphy principle’), which held that ‘save in exceptional cases, prosecutions and appeals in criminal cases should be and will be subject to the criminal costs regime’. The Murphy principle therefore restricted the High Court’s longstanding discretion to award inter partes costs in criminal judicial review cases, including those arising from private prosecutions. The judgment highlights the inconsistent approach courts have taken to costs in criminal-related High Court proceedings. Notably, the Murphy principle was introduced without argument, citation of relevant authorities, or detailed reasoning, despite its significant impact on cost recovery. In Bates, the Court held that section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) provides a general discretion to award costs, without any ‘exceptionality’ requirement. Declaring Murphy per incuriam, the Court restored the High Court’s ability to award costs and ordered costs in favour of Mr Bates. Written by Nicole Jennings, associate at Peters & Peters.