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.’
'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.
**Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
The Cabinet Office has updated Procurement Policy Note 022: Procuring Steel in Government Contracts (PPN 022) to introduce a new transparency...
Sir Oliver Robbins, former Head of the Diplomatic Service, has commenced judicial review proceedings, the FDA union has announced, to challenge his...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has launched a call for evidence as part of its legislative scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill....
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) has reported 2 statutory instruments in its 7th report of session 2026–27....
Duty of candour and disclosure requirements in judicial reviewDisclosure (stating that a document exists or has existed) in judicial review proceedings is expected to be achieved through compliance with the duty of candour rather than a formal disclosure process.Default lack of formal disclosure and
Judicial review—the Tameside dutyOverview of the Tameside dutyThe Tameside duty takes its name from Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC. As Lord Diplock explained, the duty requires the decision-maker to have ‘[asked] himself the right question and take reasonable steps to
Grounds of judicial review—unreasonablenessThis Practice Note outlines the ground of judicial review usually known as unreasonableness or irrationality.Unreasonableness as a Ground of Judicial Review‘Irrationality’ is the second of the three grounds for judicial review identified by Lord Diplock in
Grounds of judicial review—illegalityOverview of the illegality groundIllegality is the first of the grounds on judicial review set out by Lord Diplock in his classic exposition in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service:‘one can conveniently classify under three heads the
0330 161 1234