This Checklist identifies some of the key preliminary issues to be considered before bringing a claim for judicial review in the Administrative Court, with links to further guidance on each of the issues raised. Action / issue Further guidance Do you have grounds for bringing a claim for judicial review? Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used—On what grounds may a claim be brought?Grounds of judicial review—illegalityIllegality in general: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [14]Grounds of judicial review—unreasonablenessGrounds of judicial review—procedural improprietyProcedural fairness: in general: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [26]Natural justice and fairness: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [29]The right to a fair hearing: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [38]Grounds of judicial review—breach of legitimate expectationLegitimate expectations: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [28] Do you have locus standi to bring a judicial review claim? Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used—Who can bring a claim?The parties on an application for judicial review: claimant: Atkin’s Court Forms (1) [43] Is

[Insert the name and address of the proposed defendant] Dear [insert organisation name] Letter before claim in proposed judicial review proceedings concerning [insert brief description of decision, act or omission at issue] [ 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 proposed Claimant’s full name] in respect of a potential judicial review against the [decision OR act OR omission] of the Defendant [insert brief summary of decision, act or omission]. This letter constitutes [our client’s OR the Claimant’s] letter before claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. We have adopted the standard format for the letter before claim, as set out in Annex A of the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. 1 To [Insert the title, full name and address of the proposed Defendant.] 2 The Claimant [Insert the title, full name and address of the Claimant.] [The Claimant [is in receipt of legal aid funding OR [insert details of funding arrangements]].] 3 The Defendant’s reference details We understand that [insert the name and job title of the member

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived is not maintained. For alternative further reading, see Practice Note: Judicial review in Scotland—raising a claim. In Scotland, an application for Judicial Review must be brought, in the prescribed form, in the Court of Session. The Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (CR(S)A 2014) introduced a completely new procedure for judicial review proceedings in Scotland. Sections 27A–27D Court of Session Act 1988 (CSA 1988) introduced new time limits and requirement to seek permission from the Court to apply for judicial review. Chapter 58 of the Court of Session Rules was completely re-written in 2015, reforming all applications to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court in Scotland, which must be made by petition for judicial review. The key procedural stages and the corresponding Court of Session Rules for judicial review in Scotland are as follows: Procedural Stage Court of Session Rules 1. Petition Rules 58.3–58.5 2. Responding to Petition Rule 58.6 3. Permission Stage Rule 58.7–58.11 4. Procedural Hearing Rule 58.12 5.

Originally produced in partnership with Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers and updated by Freya Foster of Henderson Chambers. The 'sufficient interest' test While judicial review focuses on the lawfulness or otherwise of a public body decision, act or omission, rather than say, resolving a dispute between parties, it remains the case that any applicant (claimant) bringing a claim needs to have sufficient interest (also known as ‘standing’ or locus standii) in the alleged decision, act or omission by the public body. This is a matter of jurisdiction of the court rather than, say, agreement between the parties then seeking to confer jurisdiction on the court by consent: see for example paragraph 29 of R (Good Law Project) v Prime Minister. In general, the court takes a very broad approach to standing and it is unusual for a claim to fail on this issue. However, not every member of the public can complain about every potential breach of duty by a public body. To determine whether an applicant has sufficient interest,

Overview of the Tameside duty The 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 acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly’. It is most commonly described as a duty to make sufficient or due inquiry. For background reading, see: ‘Due Inquiry’: Supperstone, Goudie and Walker on Judicial Review [10.59]. This duty represents a logical extension of the more general and longstanding public law principle that a decision-maker should take into account all relevant considerations and no irrelevant ones, most notably emanating from Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. In this regard, Lord Diplock’s formulation of the test in the Tameside case is ‘firmly rooted in the Wednesbury principle’ (R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor). This is distinct from the (erroneous) notion that the duty emanates from a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant (R

When considering whether and how to bring a claim for judicial review, the first step is to consider whether judicial review is be an appropriate means of addressing the issues raised by the case at hand. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used. Time limits Where judicial review is the chosen course, the next step will normally be to ensure that there is still time to bring a claim. Under CPR 54.5, claims for judicial review (save for the three exceptions mentioned below) must be brought promptly and, in any event, within three months of the date on which the grounds for bringing the claim first arose. There is an overriding requirement of promptness and it should not be assumed that a claim will be in time just because it is brought within three months. In R (Jones) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police the court emphasised that the three month limit is a backstop

What is judicial review? Judicial review is a process by which the courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of public functions by public bodies. This supervisory jurisdiction should not be confused with or considered to be a right of appeal. 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.’ Proceedings normally take place in the Administrative Court, which is part of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Judicial review proceedings are subject to a number of Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Directions and a pre-action protocol. Additional guidance is also provided in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide. The guide is designed to assist parties conducting judicial review claims in the Administrative Court, collating relevant statutory provisions, procedural rules, practice directions, case law and guidance. The guide

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived is not maintained. For alternative further reading, see Practice Note: Judicial review in Scotland. Background to judicial review in Scotland Judicial review represents the means by which the courts control the exercise of governmental power. Judicial review has developed to ensure that public bodies, which exercise law-making or adjudicatory powers, are kept within the confines of the power conferred. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) extended the traditional scope of judicial review to protect instances where a public body fails to respect the human rights of an individual. The HRA 1998 requires that all public bodies comply with the right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and judicial review proceedings may be brought to enforce that legal duty. For more information see: Dealing with a human rights challenge. Decision makers must not only exercise their powers in the correct manner as prescribed by the statute and in accordance with human rights, but must also comply with

A judicial sale is a court‑ordered sale of property, typically used to enforce security, satisfy a judgment debt or realise assets in insolvency or enforcement proceedings. The court directs that specified assets (often land, ships, or other high‑value property) be sold, usually by auction or tender, and oversees or approves the process and distribution of sale proceeds.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, “judicial sale” is a descriptive term rather than a single codified concept, and its detailed mechanics derive from a mixture of statute, court rules and case law in specific contexts (for example, mortgage repossession, admiralty actions in rem, execution against goods, or winding‑up and bankruptcy).Key features commonly include: an order for sale made by a competent court; procedures designed to obtain best price reasonably achievable; protection of priority creditors, encumbrancers and bona fide purchasers; and discharge or transfer of interests on completion. Judicial sale is significant in practice for enforcing secured lending, maritime claims, judgment enforcement and insolvency realisations, and for providing buyers with enhanced title certainty due to the court’s supervisory role.

An order of the court enabling the parties to a marriage to (lawfully) live separately although to remain married.

Arbitration Analysis: International commercial courts worldwide increasingly take a pro-arbitration stance—enforcing agreements and awards, granting interim relief, and exercising minimal curial intervention. Through platforms such as SIFoCC and P.R.I.M.E. Finance, courts are sharing practice to harmonise judicial support for international arbitration and reduce unpredictability in complex financial disputes. Written by Hanna Bratsch, P.R.I.M.E. Finance Intern, as part of the P.R.I.M.E. Finance–LexisNexis Rule of Law collaboration, under which intern research is published annually.

A trustee appointed by, and acting under the control of, the court.