Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the County Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision to refuse interim/temporary accommodation pending a final decision by a local authority on review of a housing decision. A claim for judicial review is the appropriate way to challenge such a decision (as it also is if temporary housing is refused pending the first housing decision being made before the review.) The County Court only obtains jurisdiction once a final decision on review is made (or if the review decision is not made within time.) Written by Adam Heppinstall, barrister, Henderson Chambers.

When a public body receives a claim form for judicial review, the first step is to consider whether the claim has been brought in time. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol. Time limits for bringing a judicial review claim Different time limits apply for certain types of judicial review claim: • judicial review of decision of the Upper Tribunal must be brought within 16 days of notice of the Tribunal’s decision being sent • public procurement cases must be brought within 30 days of when a claimant knew, or ought to have known, of the alleged breach of the public procurement rules. The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide, para 6.4.3.3 says: ‘Where the claim relates to a decision under [PA 2023], the claim must be started within the time specified by [PA 2023, s 106]: 30 days from the date when the claimant first knew or ought to have known that grounds for starting the proceedings had arisen.’ The

This Checklist outlines the key procedural steps and considerations for parties preparing or responding to a request for extension of time in judicial review claims in the Administrative Court. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases. Time limits for bringing claims and the requirement to act 'promptly' • Where proceedings are to be commenced in the High Court, the claim form must be filed promptly and in any event not later than three months after the grounds upon which the claim is based first arose, save for the exceptions below where shorter time limits apply: ◦ challenges to planning decisions must be brought within six weeks of the date on which the grounds for bringing the claim first arose ◦ challenges to procurement decisions governed by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 must be brought within 30 days of the date on which the grounds for bringing the claim first arose. See News Analysis: Time limits for public procurement challenges—reminder of the distinct approaches

It is not unusual for a claimant to want their judicial review claim to be considered urgently. This Checklist outlines the key procedural steps and considerations for parties preparing, reviewing or responding to an application for urgent consideration in the Administrative Court. It should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases. Request for urgent consideration—Form N463 If a claimant wants their application for judicial review to be considered urgently, the claim form should be accompanied by an application for urgent consideration (Form N463). When completing Form N463, the claimant must complete the relevant sections as follows: • Section 1—set out the reasons for urgency • Section 2—set out the proposed timetable, and: ◦ specify the time within which the application for permission should be considered (ie ‘immediately’ being within three days, or ‘urgently’ being over three days) ◦ specify that interim relief is sought and the timeframe within which such an application should be considered ◦ confirm that an abridgement of time for the defendant to lodge the

Local Government analysis: Local Authority refused to provide an indemnity to Joseph Anderson (the former elected Mayor of Liverpool) in respect of criminal defence costs he had/might incur, arising from an investigation into his alleged conduct. That refusal was challenged in a judicial review. Mrs Justice Yip held that the general power of competence in section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 gave power to local authorities to provide an indemnity to its employees/members (or former employees/members). The Council having adopted a policy setting out the circumstances in which an indemnity would be granted the Council was required to follow it unless there were good reasons for not doing so. This case is important and will likely be of interest to any practitioners specialising in public law/judicial review. Written by Louis Browne QC, barrister, of Exchange Chambers, Manchester, Liverpool & Leeds, and leading counsel for the defendant.

Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) against a ruling by the High Court that an application to de-proscribe a proscribed organisation, coupled with an appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), was not a suitable alternative remedy to judicial review in the circumstances of the case. Ms Ammori’s application for permission to appeal against the decision of the High Court refusing permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 1, 5, 6 and 7 was brought out of time. However, the Court of Appeal granted her an extension of time. The Court of Appeal also granted permission to apply for judicial review (instead of permission to appeal) in respect of ground 5, limited to the matters raised in the amended statement of facts and grounds, and ground 6. It refused permission to appeal in relation to grounds 1 and 7 of the amended statement of facts and grounds. Written by Rowena Wisniewska Sethi, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers.

Environment analysis: This case was about a change of government policy on local energy efficiency standards for new homes, and whether that policy change was lawful. There were three grounds of challenge by judicial review to the policy change—none succeeded. Ground 1: the judge was satisfied that the duty under section 19(1) of the Environment Act 2021 (EA 2021) to have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement (‘EPPS’) was met. Ground 2: the judge decided that the minister had not unlawfully purported to restrict the exercise by local authorities of powers conferred by statute. Ground 3: the judge found that the written ministerial statement (‘WMS’) setting out the policy change did not present an unlawfully misleading picture of the legal powers of decision makers. This is the first reported case on the new duty on ministers to have due regard to the EPPS under EA 2021, s 19(1) (which came into force on 1 November 2023). Written by Elaine Webb, principal lawyer at the Office for Environmental Protection.

Dear [insert name] Response to your letter before claim in proposed judicial review proceedings [ Claimant OR Your Client]: [insert proposed Claimant’s full name] [ Defendant OR Our Client]: [insert proposed Defendant’s full name] [This [firm OR department] acts for [insert Defendant’s full name]]. We refer to your letter before claim dated [insert date of the letter before claim] received by our office on [insert date of receipt]. This letter constitutes our [client’s] formal response in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. We have adopted the standard format for a response to a letter before claim, as set out in Annex B of the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. 1 The Claimant [Insert name of the Claimant] of [Insert the address of the Claimant.] (‘the Claimant’). 2 From [Insert

Originally produced in partnership with Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers and updated by Freya Foster of Henderson Chambers. The different routes of challenge The vast majority of environmental protection and regulation is delivered through public bodies such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, Defra, the Secretary of State for Transport and local authorities. Holding those bodies to account and challenging the decisions, acts and omissions of those public bodies is therefore a central component of environmental law. While there are a range of courts and tribunals in which to seek review and appeal decisions (for example the General Regulatory Chamber covering some environmental appeals, the Information Tribunal covering matters relating to environmental information, and the High Court considering appeals by case stated), two common and important routes are judicial review and statutory review. In England and Wales, both involve claims being issued in the Administrative Court, a specialist court within the Kings Bench Division of the High Court. Deciding whether judicial review or statutory challenge is the appropriate route will depend upon the type of decision which has been

Judicial review is a process by which the courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of public functions by public bodies. Judicial review proceedings in England and Wales normally take place in the Administrative Court, which is part of the King’s

This Practice Note summarises the procedural stages in a judicial review application and then describes in depth the specific requirements for each stage as prescribed by the CPR, CPR PD and Administrative Court guidance. Practitioners operating in the Administrative Court need to ensure compliance with the following guidance when considering commencement of proceedings: • the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR), Part 1, Part 54 • the Civil Procedural Rules Practice Directions: ◦ CPR PD 54A for general provisions relating to judicial review ◦ CPR PD 54B for urgent applications and other matters such as interim relief ◦ CPR PD 54C for court venue ◦ CPR PD 54D for planning court claims • The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide • Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review • section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 • the Human Rights Act 1998 Key procedural stages in a judicial review claim in the Administrative Court Broadly speaking, and subject to any contrary directions,

Interested parties In the context of judicial review, an interested party is 'any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim'. Where the claim for judicial review relates to proceedings in a court or tribunal, any other party to those proceedings will be an interested party in the judicial review proceedings eg if the defendant in a criminal case in the Magistrates or Crown Court applies for judicial review of a decision in that case, the prosecution must always be named as an interested party in the judicial review claim. A person will be ‘directly affected’ if they are ‘affected without the intervention of any intermediate agency’. For example, in R v Rent Officer Service, ex parte Muldoon, a local housing authority’s decision not to pay a housing benefit was challenged. The Secretary of State was indirectly affected in that if the decision was quashed, the disputed benefit would be added to the subsidy paid to the local authority. However,