New guidance encourages judicial review practitioners to be concise, succinct and prepared

13 August 2021

Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.

What has changed?

The Claim Form

The new practice direction states that the Claim Form must contain all material facts relevant to the claim and the claimant must make proper and necessary inquiries before seeking permission to apply to ensure that, so far as reasonably possible, all relevant facts are known. This adds emphasis to the need for the claimant, before submitting a claim, to ensure that they have investigated the case sufficiently to comply with this requirement.

The Claim Form must also be accompanied by, or include, a Statement of Facts and Grounds (‘SFG’). The main change here is that the emphasis is now very much on the SFG being succinct and concise. To hammer home the point, there is now a 40-page limit.

The Acknowledgment of Service

If the defendant decides to file an Acknowledgment of Service, the Summary Grounds contained within it must succinctly identify any relevant facts and the legal basis of the defendant’s response to the claimant’s case. As with the Claim Form, the new practice direction emphasises the importance of the Summary Grounds being succinct and concise, giving a 30-page limit. The practice direction notes that in many cases, the court will expect the Summary Grounds to be much shorter.

Detailed Grounds

Once the case has been given permission by a judge, the next step is for the defendant to file Detailed Grounds with a new 40-page limit. The new practice direction gives the defendant the option of their Summary Grounds standing as their Detailed Grounds. It is not clear how popular this encouragement to avoid duplication will prove to be, however, it may be suitable for a defendant who is keen to keep costs to a minimum or has set out its case comprehensively at the permission stage.

Where a claimant seeks to rely on additional grounds to those in the Claim Form post-permission, there is new emphasis on the need for the claimant to make a formal application to the court for permission to amend the Claim Form in accordance with Part 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).

Unusually, the duty of candour is not mentioned until this part of the new rules. Nevertheless, as the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2020 (here) describes the duty of candour as being a ‘continuing duty on all parties’, the new practice direction should not be taken to mean that the duty only arises at the Detailed Grounds stage.   

Skeleton arguments

The claimant must file and serve their skeleton argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing. The defendant must do the same not less than 14 days before the hearing. These time limits previously related to working days. Once again, the rules are now clear that skeleton arguments must be concise and must not exceed 25 pages. Those who file skeleton arguments that exceed the page limit can expect to have them returned by the court as there is now specific provision for this in the rules. The skeleton may not be re-filed until it is compliant. The page limit is especially demanding because skeleton arguments must now be self-contained and must not incorporate by reference material from previous pleadings.

The hearing and authorities bundles

No less than 21 days before the hearing date, the parties must agree and lodge the final hearing bundle with the court. This is the same day that the claimant’s skeleton argument is due and a week before the defendant’s deadline. Therefore, it is important to be prepared and front-load the work. This is not the time to be raising new matters; all facts and issues should be in the open at this point.

The authorities bundle must be lodged with the court no less than 7 days before the hearing. Alongside this, parties should also lodge a chronology, a list of issues and a time estimate. As all of these documents will take time to prepare and agree, it is important to discuss them with the other side well in advance of the hearing.


Applications for permission to intervene must be made under Part 23 of the CPR. They must be made promptly and the court is unlikely to accede to an application to intervene if it would have the consequence of delaying the proceedings. This is broadly consistent with the previous requirements.

If the applicant wishes to make representations at the hearing, it is now a requirement for the application to include a summary of these. Similarly, where an intervener wishes to file and serve evidence in the proceedings, a copy of this must be filed with the application to intervene.

The changes to the rules mean that interveners need to move quickly and be prepared to front-load the work associated with becoming involved in a judicial review claim.

Urgents procedure

The new practice direction 54B deals with urgent applications. It makes it clear that abuse of the urgents procedure will no longer be tolerated. The procedure is only for very urgent cases. An example of this is where the claimant is going to suffer serious irreversible harm unless the case is expedited.

The application must state why it needs to be considered urgently, the reasons why it was not made sooner and the timescale requested for consideration of the application.   

In a recent decision of Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift under the Hamid jurisdiction, the perils of failing correctly to follow the urgents procedure were demonstrated.  In this case, which pre-dated the new practice direction 54B, counsel was required to appear in court to explain why he had used the urgents procedure for a case that was not urgent. Lord Justice Lewis determined that it was unacceptable to abuse the urgents procedure and reminded practitioners of the need to give very careful consideration to the appropriateness of using the urgents procedure. The new practice direction 54B supports that strict approach becoming the norm.


The new practice directions 54A and 54B have initiated a renewed focus on parties thinking carefully about how they approach judicial review claims. Care should be given when considering whether to use the urgents procedure and thought must be given to ensuring that documents are concise, succinct and compliant with page limits. It is clear that all parties, including interveners, should front-load their work and be prepared well in advance of important milestones in a case.

Further Information

Kingsley Napley LLP regularly represents parties in judicial review challenges. Our lawyers also blog regularly about public law matters. Follow our Public Law blog for the latest commentary.

Should you have any questions about the issues covered in this blog, please contact Imogen RobertsNick Wrightson or a member of our Public Law team.


About the Authors

Imogen Roberts is a trainee solicitor in Kingsley Napley’s Public Law team. Imogen joined Kingsley Napley in 2020, having worked as a Senior Caseworker at Resolve West (a charity specialising in restorative justice). Imogen trained as a restorative justice facilitator and mediated conversations between victims and perpetrators of serious violent and sexual assaults. Imogen also worked at the Personal Support Unit, assisting litigants in person at court.

Nick Wrightson is a Partner in our Public Law team. Nick has an administrative and public law practice focused on judicial review litigation and supporting clients through public inquiries and complex inquests. Nick’s experience includes representing public bodies, private companies, individuals, representative bodies and charities – often in high stakes, politically and commercially sensitive cases.


Latest blogs & news

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill: Proposed reform of Judicial Review

Attempts to narrow the scope of judicial review have long been on the Conservative Party’s political agenda. Following the Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘IRAL’) and the subsequent government consultation on reform of judicial review, the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, introduced the Judicial Review and Courts Bill (‘the Bill’) to the House of Commons on 21 July 2021. The Bill is making its way through Parliament and is currently at the committee stage.

As we highlighted in our earlier blog following the Bill’s announcement, the proposed reforms are, at first sight, milder than had been feared. Nevertheless, the Bill proposes to make significant amendments to the remedies available in judicial review proceedings and to also limit the court’s jurisdiction.

Case Note – challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in judicial review proceedings: R (Girgis) v Joint Committee on Intercollegiate Examinations [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

The Administrative Court of England & Wales has recently considered a challenge to its jurisdiction to hear a judicial review claim on the basis (asserted by the defendant) that the claim should be heard at the Court of Session in Scotland. As explained below, the challenge was unsuccessful, but the case is interesting not just because of the Court’s conclusion on the substantive issue but also because of His Honour Judge Simon’s approach to the “technical” (procedural) issues the case gave rise to.

New guidance encourages judicial review practitioners to be concise, succinct and prepared

Earlier this year, changes to Practice Direction 54A (covering judicial review) and 54B (covering urgent applications) came into effect. This blog will consider the impact that the changes have had on the procedure for judicial review, before turning to a recent example of the perils of failing to follow the rules.

Can you devise an effective ouster clause to exclude a category of decision making from judicial review?

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill contains a new ‘ouster clause’ designed to prevent judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions on certain applications for permission to appeal against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal. This blog explores why drafting legislation to restrict judicial review is so difficult.

The UK Supreme Court has confirmed the principles for judicial review of policies

R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (BF (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38

Two linked Supreme Court judgments provide a reminder to claimants that challenges to policies should focus on whether the policies authorise or approve violations of the law. The court acknowledges that policies are issued to promote practical objectives and the standards set for reviewing them must not be unduly demanding.

Judicial Review Reform – waiting for the sting

Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.

Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts

This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.

Office for Students refusal to register higher education provider unlawful due to failure to delegate and ‘secret policy’

The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.

International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly do not alter the outcome of the Chagos Islands challenge

In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.

Voter ID laws and the way courts interpret legislation

Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.

The High Court confirms that unincorporated associations may participate in both judicial review claims and statutory challenges

Even if it is generally more straightforward for the claimant to be a legal person, this judgment may give confidence to the likes of amateur sports clubs and campaigning pressure groups considering challenging the exercise of public power.

Enemies of the constitution? The words of those attacking independent judges are corrosive and wrong

Everyone has an opinion on yesterday’s decision of the UK Supreme Court. Boris Johnson said on television that he profoundly disagreed with it. Jacob Rees-Mogg reportedly called it a ‘constitutional coup’ on a cabinet conference call. Former Lord Chancellor Michael Gove was distinctly equivocal about it when interviewed on the Today programme. Laura Kuenssberg reported on Twitter that a No 10 source said ‘the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach into these political matters’. The fact these people all claim they will still ‘respect’ the decision does not detract from the corrosiveness of their sentiments.

Since prorogation ‘never happened’ what happens next?

The prorogation judicial reviews concerned the constitutional equilibrium between government, parliament and the courts. Today, an 11 member UK Supreme Court panel affirmed its centuries-old supervisory jurisdiction over acts of government and ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s government failed to advance any reasonable justification for proroguing parliament. The prorogation was therefore unlawful and ‘never happened’ so parliament is back in the game.

When politics and law collide: The prorogation judicial reviews

Scotland’s highest court and a senior divisional court of the High Court in England and Wales have reached opposite conclusions about whether the recent decision to prorogue parliament was lawful.

“WhatsApp” with Dominic Grieve’s motion for Brexit communications?

Monday night’s marathon session in Parliament saw a number of issues debated into the small hours and further defeats for the government. While many raised important political and legal issues, one of particular interest to information lawyers, followers of Parliamentary procedure and journalists alike was the endorsement of a “Humble Address” motion brought by former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.

High Court finds Mayor’s Congestion Charge decision did not involve unlawful discrimination

On 24 July 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Independent Workers Union Of Great Britain and others) v Mayor Of London [2019] EWHC 1997 (Admin). This case related to the decision in December 2018 by the Mayor of London to remove an exemption and require private hire vehicles (“PHV”) to pay the Congestion Charge from 8 April 2019


London Climate Action Week: Saving Londoners from nitrogen dioxide, one judicial review at a time

According to the most recent data, two million people in London are living with illegal levels of air pollution. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the main pollutants and road transport is estimated to be responsible for 50% of total emissions.

KN Green Week: Can law help save the world?

We have seen in recent months various and different attempts by those who want to change the course of government policy on the issue of climate change.

Court finds approach by DWP to Universal Credit ‘odd in the extreme’

The High Court judgment of R (Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart) v SSWP [2019]EWHC 23 (Admin) involved a judicial review challenge to the method of calculating universal credit. The claimants successfully demonstrated that the DWP’s method of calculation was an incorrect interpretation of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (the Regulations) as it failed to account for circumstances where workers’ pay dates do not converge with the fixed assessment periods under the universal credit scheme. 

Judicial Review costs – a missed opportunity to extend access to justice

In its consultation “Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals”, which was launched on 28 March 2019, the Ministry of Justice has failed to take forward a proposal that could have had a significant impact on the ability of individuals to hold public bodies to account through judicial review proceedings.

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility