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 published a joint statement following a meeting of the UK-EU Specialised Committee on the Implementation of the Windsor...
Law360, London: Human resources software company, MHR International UK Ltd, has brought proceedings against the government-funded National Heritage...
This week’s edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes hand-picked summary of news analysis, legal updates and case law from the world of Public...
Public Law analysis: The High Court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss Bromcom’s unlawful means conspiracy claim alleging that Arbor’s...
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
An introductory guide to damages in judicial reviewThere is no general right to damages caused by unlawful administrative acts. However the court does have a discretion in certain circumstances to award damages in successful claims, which it will only exercise where it is just and appropriate to do
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
What is fettering of discretion in judicial review? When is it an actionable ground of challenge and what must be established for a challenge to succeed?Save in particular circumstances, a public body cannot prevent itself from properly considering the exercise of its discretion in individual cases.
0330 161 1234