Judicial Review

Specialist judicial review solicitors acting for individuals, companies and public bodies.

"experience, willingness to challenge and be challenged, understanding of legislation, regulations and drafting skills."

Chambers UK, A Client's Guide to the UK Legal Profession 2018

Whether you are an individual, senior professional, company, business group, charity or pressure group, a judicial review can be a powerful way of insisting that a public body changes its course or, at the very least, reviews and explains its actions. If you are thinking about bringing a judicial review claim, or are a public body facing the threat of one, getting specialist judicial review solicitors involved at the outset can make all the difference.

Known for our strength in judicial review litigation and our incisive and pragmatic advice, we are regularly instructed to represent claimants and interested parties (individuals and corporate bodies), as well as public body defendants in public law litigation. We have acted in many leading cases, and were listed in The Lawyer's Top 20 Cases of 2015, for acting on behalf of the Financial Conduct Authority, in a ground breaking challenge by Rosneft to sanctions imposed against Russia.

We have significant experience of judicial review in a wide range of sectors including financial services, education, health and social care, legal and professional services, police and energy. We are also specialists in challenges arising out of regulatory/disciplinary and criminal investigations and proceedings. We are well known for our insights into the workings of central government and the public sector, with Adam Chapman and Stephen Parkinson having held senior roles as government lawyers.

How our judicial review solicitors can help

As one of the few dedicated public law teams in the country, we know the ins and outs of bringing or defending a claim. We work with you from the beginning to quickly identify the core issues and gain an insight into your key concerns, allowing us to deliver clear, focussed and commercially driven advice and management of your case.

We respect your constraints and the importance of the right presentation and tone, as well as appreciating the pressure a legal claim can put on already busy staff.

The team is led by Adam Chapman, formerly head of one of the judicial review litigation teams at the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, and who continues to be consistently recognised as a leader in this field.

Making a judicial review claim

We understand that decisions made by government and public bodies can have far reaching and serious commercial, financial, organisational or personal consequences. It is vital they are correctly made.

When things go wrong, we can help you consider a judicial review claim or statutory challenge to ensure that the decisions that matter most to you are fair, lawful and rational, and do not infringe on EU treaty or human rights.

Defending a judicial review claim

If you are a regulator or public body facing the scrutiny of judicial review, we can help.

We understand the wider context in which decisions of central government, statutory regulators and other bodies exercising public functions are made, and the impact a claim can have.

We are ready to work with you throughout the decision-making process to ensure the lawfulness of your actions, and can also be relied upon from the moment a potential dispute arises to mount a principled, measured and robust defence. We know how to navigate the competing interests involved.

recent judicial review cases

  • Acting for an individual in successfully challenging a search warrant and preventing the police from applying to the Crown Court to retain material that had been seized when the warrant was executed
  • Acting for Chief Constable David Crompton in overturning  a decision of a Police and Crime Commissioner requiring him to resign
  • Acting for a psychotherapist in stopping a regulatory body from taking disciplinary proceedings against her. 
  • Acting for the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and the Criminal Law Solicitors Association in two separate challenges to the Lord Chancellor’s decision to introduce a “two tier” system of contracts for criminal legal aid defence solicitors
  • Acting for the Financial Conduct Authority in defending a challenge made by Rosneft arising out of the EU sanctions on the Russian Federation
  • Acting for a group of companies challenging third party notices issued by HMRC following a mutual legal assistance request
  • Acting for the General Dental Council in defending a challenge to an increase in annual registration fees for dentists

 

Frequently asked judicial review questions

What is judicial review?

Judicial review is a specialised form of civil litigation involving challenging the lawfulness of an enactment, or a decision, action or failure to act of a public body in relation to the exercise of a public function.

Who are the parties to judicial review?

Judicial review will always involve at least one claimant and one defendant public body. It may also involve interested parties. An interested party is any person (including a company or partnership), other than a claimant or defendant, who is directly affected by the claim. 

It is also open to any other person to apply to the court for permission to give evidence or make submissions .Those granted permission to do so are known as interveners.

What is the basic judicial review procedure?

A letter before claim is usually sent by the claimant to the defendant and any interested parties. If no response is received or the parties cannot resolve the dispute, then the claimant may commence litigation. 

Judicial review proceedings are divided into two stages (the ‘permission stage’ and the ‘substantive stage’). 

First the claimant must apply to the court for permission to apply for judicial review. Other parties will usually file papers supporting or opposing the application. The court will then review the papers and grant permission if there is an arguable case that a ground for judicial review exists and merits further investigation. 

If permission is refused, there may be scope for reconsideration at an oral hearing. If permission is granted, the substantive claim (or permitted parts of it) will proceed to the second stage of a full public hearing in the High Court. 

In rare cases, the two stages may be dealt with together at a full public ‘rolled-up’ hearing. 

What are the grounds for judicial review?

There are many possible grounds for judicial review. The main categories are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 

Illegality is essentially where a public authority acts outside the scope of its powers or duties, or fails to comply with them. For example, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Irrationality takes many forms. It can range from taking account of irrelevant considerations to acting in an outrageous or illogical manner beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. 

Procedural impropriety means failing to follow the required process, and can include failures to consult, act within a reasonable time or give reasons – as well as alleging that a decision is tainted by bias.

What is the time limit for judicial review?

Judicial review proceedings are intended to quickly resolve challenges that generate uncertainty for public officials and bodies about whether they can safely proceed with administrative action. 

Claimants are generally obliged to file claim forms promptly (basically as soon as they can) and, in any event, not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. 

Failure to act promptly may seriously prejudice or defeat a claim.

How long does judicial review take?

It is difficult to predict how long proceedings will take once a claim has been issued. Most judicial reviews are resolved in the High Court within around 9 months but timescales for urgent matters can be much shorter. 

The timing is generally dictated by the resources of the High Court, although it is open to either party to seek to have the claim dealt with expeditiously. Depending on the outcome, there may be an appeal.

What remedies can judicial review deliver?

Where a claimant shows that a defendant has acted unlawfully the court may decide to grant a ‘quashing order’, confirming that the challenged decision has no lawful force and no legal effect. 

Other potential remedies include the court deciding to compel a public body to act in a particular way or to take no action, or the court declaring what the law is on a particular point. Damages are only occasionally available.

How is judicial review funded?

We only take on privately funded judicial review cases and are unable to represent parties funded by legal aid. 

The overall cost of judicial review will depend, among other things, on the nature, size and urgency of the case, alongside the strategy adopted and factors beyond a party’s control. In general, the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay most of the costs of the successful party. 

In limited circumstances, including environmental cases, the contribution that each unsuccessful party can be ordered to pay towards a successful party’s costs may be capped at a relatively low level by the court.

 

One of their main strengths is the personal touch - you get the sense the lawyers really care about the work they undertake and you as a client"

Chambers UK, A Clients Guide to the UK Legal Profession, 2019

Sources praise the group's abilities in 'sensitive, high-profile, politically inflected work' and attest that 'what is really refreshing is their commitment to their clients and the care they take'..."

Chambers UK, A Clients Guide to the UK Legal Profession

Clients are ‘very impressed with the degree of care’ Kingsley Napley LLP has in handling judicial reviews, public inquiries, inquests and regulatory matters."

Legal 500 UK, 2017

A real diversity of work. They benefit from experience acting for individuals, companies and public bodies, which gives them a depth and gravitas that sets them apart. Also, they are very friendly and down to earth individuals."

Chambers UK, A Clients Guide to the UK Legal Profession, 2017

The ‘fantastic’ team at Kingsley Napley LLP ‘is dedicated and undertakes some of the most highprofile public cases"

Legal 500 UK, 2015

Practice head Adam Chapman’s experience working in government makes him the ideal lawyer for both commercial and claimant judicial review"

Legal 500 UK, 2015

 

Judicial Review Insights

View all

Blogs

Will Your Voice Be Heard? – A Re-Examination of Standing in Judicial Review in the Light of Worboys

Judicial Review and the Creep of Closed Material Procedures - R (on the application of Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans and another

The High Court’s decision is (sometimes) final: the Court of Appeal confirms the decision of a coroner in relation to witnesses and the risk of harm caused by giving evidence

Legal Update: Judicial review of decisions in the Crown Court

Legal update: Administrators’ efforts to realise Monarch’s assets boosted by judicial review victory

Legal Update: NGOs win challenge to Aarhus costs caps

TfL finds Uber no-longer ‘fit and proper’ to operate in London

The Coroner’s decision is (almost always) final: the Court’s approach to judicial review of inquest proceedings

The special constitutional importance of judicial review may demand a distinctive approach to the recovery of litigation costs, but will the latest recommendations be taken forward?

Brexit: what the Government (whoever forms it) needs to do now

To what extent is an appellate disciplinary tribunal entitled to interfere with a finding made by a panel of first instance when that finding is predicated on primarily hearsay evidence

What role should personal mitigation play in disciplinary proceedings where a police officer is found to have committed gross misconduct?

The availability of judicial review against bodies exercising “public functions”

Judicial review reform: False assumptions replaced by objective research

Fun and games, but not a sport - judicial review action determines bridge’s status

'Reform' of judicial review – The bandwagon trundles on

Judicial review and suitable alternative remedies

At last some hope: defeat in the House of Lords of Judicial Review Proposals

Judicial Review Reforms – a collision course with the judges?

Changes to Judicial Review of Planning Decisions come into force today

Challenging the Financial Conduct Authority – no anonymity and (almost) no judicial review

Judicial Review Reform – the juggernaut rumbles on

Judicial review reform - will it work?

Inconsistent, partial and falling below the standards to be expected of a responsible public body – but still lawful: TfL’s bus advertisement ban

Supreme Court approves CPS policy on discontinuing private prosecutions – but only just...

Missing the point – the Prime Minister and judicial review

Applications for search warrants and the duty of disclosure: does it matter if the police get it wrong?

Sanctions – ameliorating the effect on individuals

A Chief Coroner at long last... but what difference will he make?

London Metropolitan University: Any chance of challenging the UKBA?

Virgin Trains: procuring a fight

Judicial review – busting the explosion myth

Challenging the FSA Regulatory Decisions Committee: the Upper Tribunal or the Administrative Court?

Challenging a decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service: Dare you?

Public Law Update: Healthcare rationing

Close Load more

Let us take it from here.

+44 (0)20 7814 1200

enquiries@kingsleynapley.co.uk

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility