How to challenge a public body's decision by judicial review

What judicial review is for

Judicial review is the procedure for asking the High Court to decide whether a public body has acted lawfully. The Civil Procedure Rules describe it as a claim to review the lawfulness of an enactment, or of a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function. The defendant is usually a government department, a local authority, a regulator or another body exercising public functions. Claims are dealt with by the Administrative Court, which hears cases in London, Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester, and planning cases go to its specialist Planning Court.

The court reviews how the decision was made. It does not take the decision again or replace the public body's view of the merits with its own, and it will not intervene simply because it would have reached a different conclusion. If a claim succeeds, the usual result is that the decision is quashed and the public body has to make it again lawfully, which can still lead to the same outcome by a proper route. Before starting, it is therefore important to be clear about what a successful claim would achieve for your business.

How businesses use judicial review

Businesses use judicial review to challenge a wide range of public decisions. For example, say a council grants planning permission for a development next to a business's premises that will affect its access or operations. Only the applicant can appeal a planning decision to the Planning Inspectorate, so a business affected by someone else's permission has to look to judicial review. Other examples include licensing decisions where there is no statutory appeal, a council's decision on a discretionary grant or relief, a public procurement decision where the procurement legislation does not give the business a remedy, and a regulator's decision that cannot be appealed to a tribunal.

Home Office decisions on sponsor licences are another example. The Home Office's guidance for sponsors says there is no right of appeal against the revocation of a sponsor licence, so an employer that believes a revocation was unlawful has to consider judicial review, and must act quickly.

The grounds for judicial review

A claim must show that the decision was unlawful, and disagreement with the outcome is not enough on its own. The grounds developed by the courts are usually grouped under three headings.

• Illegality. The body misunderstood or misapplied the law governing its decision, acted outside its powers, used a power for an improper purpose, took irrelevant matters into account or ignored relevant ones, or applied a policy so rigidly that it failed to consider the individual case.
• Irrationality. The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have reached it. This is a high threshold.
• Procedural unfairness. The body failed to follow a procedure required by law, failed to consult properly where consultation was required or promised, did not give a fair opportunity to respond, failed to give reasons where it had to, or was affected by bias.

Other grounds can apply too, including breach of a legitimate expectation created by a clear promise from the public body, a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and a failure to comply with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Whatever the ground, the court must refuse relief if it appears highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, unless there is a reason of exceptional public interest. The claimant must also have a sufficient interest in the matter, which a business directly affected by a decision will usually be able to show.

Time limits for judicial review

The time limits are short and the court applies them strictly. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the claim form must be filed promptly and in any event no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose. The parties cannot extend this by agreement, and filing within three months is not always enough: the court can refuse permission or relief where there has been undue delay and granting relief would cause substantial hardship or prejudice to others, or would be detrimental to good administration.

Shorter limits apply in two areas that often matter to businesses. A claim relating to a decision by the Secretary of State or a local planning authority under the planning Acts must be filed no later than six weeks after the grounds first arose. A claim relating to a public procurement decision must be filed within the time a supplier would have to bring a claim under the procurement legislation, which for a decision governed by the Procurement Act 2023 is 30 days from when the supplier first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim. Separately, a legal challenge to a planning appeal decision made by the Planning Inspectorate must be made to the High Court within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.

Writing to the public body, making a complaint or negotiating does not stop time running. If a deadline is close, the claim should be issued in time, and the parties can then ask the court to pause the proceedings while they try to settle or narrow the dispute.

Check for an appeal or other remedy first

Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. If another route, such as a statutory appeal, an internal review or a complaints procedure, would provide an adequate remedy, the court generally expects it to be used first and will usually refuse permission if it has not been. Many decisions that affect businesses carry their own appeal rights, often with short deadlines. For example, an applicant who is refused planning permission can generally appeal to the Planning Inspectorate within six months of the decision, and appeals against many licensing authority decisions under the Licensing Act 2003 must be made to the magistrates' court within 21 days of being notified of the decision.

Ombudsmen are another route for some complaints. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigates maladministration by councils, and it will normally expect the council to have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond first. It will not usually investigate where the complainant has or had a remedy in the courts or a right of appeal to a tribunal, unless it is not reasonable to expect them to use it. The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review notes that the ombudsmen cannot look into a complaint once court action has started, so the choice of route needs thought at the outset.

The letter before claim

Before issuing a claim, the claimant should normally follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review by sending the public body a letter before claim in the standard format the Protocol sets out. The letter should identify the decision being challenged and its date, summarise the facts and the legal basis of the claim, say what the claimant expects the body to do, set out any proposals for resolving the dispute without proceedings, name any interested parties, who should be sent a copy, and ask for any information and documents needed to understand the decision. The Protocol says that 14 days is a reasonable time to allow for a reply in most cases, and the public body should normally respond within 14 days, saying whether it concedes the claim in full or in part, giving any new decision, or explaining why it disagrees.

The Protocol is not appropriate in very urgent cases, where the claim should be made immediately and an urgent application considered, and it does not change the time limits. A well-prepared letter before claim can resolve the matter, because it gives the body a chance to reconsider before the costs of proceedings are incurred, and the court takes compliance with the Protocol into account when it makes orders about costs.

Starting a claim and the permission stage

A claim is started by filing a judicial review claim form, form N461, setting out the grounds and the remedy sought, together with the supporting documents. It must be served on the public body and any interested party within seven days of issue. The court fee for an application for permission to apply for judicial review is £179.

A claim cannot go ahead without the court's permission. The public body, and any interested party that wants to take part, must file an acknowledgment of service within 21 days of being served, summarising any grounds for contesting the claim. A judge then decides, usually on the papers, whether the claim is arguable. Permission must be refused if the claimant does not have a sufficient interest, or if it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different, unless there is an exceptional public interest. Permission can also be refused because of undue delay or because an adequate alternative remedy was available.

If permission is refused on the papers, the claimant can ask for the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing, within seven days of being served with the reasons, unless the judge has recorded that the claim is totally without merit. The fee for that request is £449, with a further £447 if permission is then granted at the hearing. If permission is granted on the papers, the claimant must pay a fee of £897 within seven days of service of the order, and the public body then has 35 days to file its detailed grounds and any written evidence.

The full hearing and the remedies available

At the full hearing the court decides the claim on the written evidence and the legal arguments, and it can decide the claim without a hearing if all parties agree. The remedies are discretionary. They are a quashing order, which sets the decision aside; a mandatory order, which requires the body to do something; a prohibiting order, which stops it from acting unlawfully; a declaration of the legal position; and an injunction. When the court quashes a decision it can send the matter back to the body with a direction to reconsider it in line with the court's findings, and it can delay the effect of the quashing order or limit its retrospective effect.

A claim for judicial review can include a claim for damages, restitution or a sum due, but it cannot seek that alone, and the court can award it only if it would have been awarded in an ordinary civil claim brought at the same time. For most businesses, the practical value of a successful claim is a fresh decision made lawfully.

Costs and costs protection

As in other civil claims, the losing party is usually ordered to pay the winning party's costs, so a claimant needs to budget for its own costs and for the risk of paying the public body's costs if the claim fails. If permission is refused, the claimant will generally be ordered to pay the public body's costs of preparing its acknowledgment of service. A public body that concedes after a letter before claim avoids those costs for both sides.

Costs protection is limited. In environmental claims within the scope of the Aarhus Convention, a claimant that says so in its claim form and provides a schedule of its financial resources has its liability for the other side's costs capped at £10,000, or £5,000 for an individual claiming only as an individual, and the public body's liability is capped at £35,000, although the court can vary the caps. Outside those claims, the court can make a costs capping order only after permission has been granted, and only in public interest proceedings where the claimant would otherwise withdraw, which is unlikely to apply where a business is protecting its own commercial interests.

What to do if you want to challenge a decision

As soon as you receive a decision you want to challenge, note the date you were told about it and work out the deadlines for any appeal and for judicial review. Ask the public body for its full reasons and the documents it relied on, if you do not already have them, and check whether there is a statutory appeal, a review or a complaints process that would give you an adequate remedy. Keep a record of what you were told and when, and of any promises the body made to you. Then take advice on whether the decision is open to challenge, which route is right and what a successful challenge would achieve.

We advise businesses and their owners on challenging decisions by councils, regulators and government departments, including letters before claim, appeals and complaints, and judicial review proceedings. Because the time limits are short, contact us as soon as you receive a decision that concerns you. We agree the scope and cost of our work with you in writing before we start.

Frequently asked questions

What is the time limit for judicial review?

A claim must be filed promptly and in any event within three months of the date the grounds for the claim first arose. Shorter limits apply to some decisions: six weeks for decisions under the planning Acts, and generally 30 days for public procurement decisions. The parties cannot extend these limits by agreement, sending a letter before claim does not stop time running, and the court can refuse a claim filed within the limit if there has been undue delay.

How much does judicial review cost?

The court fees are £179 to apply for permission and £897 to continue if permission is granted on the papers, or £449 to ask for a hearing if permission is refused. Your own legal costs depend on the complexity of the case. The losing party is normally ordered to pay the other side's costs, and a claimant who is refused permission will generally have to pay the public body's costs of preparing its acknowledgment of service. In environmental claims, a business's liability for the other side's costs is capped at £10,000 unless the court varies it.

Can I get compensation through judicial review?

Only in limited circumstances. A claim for judicial review can include a claim for damages, but cannot seek damages alone, and the court can award them only if they would have been awarded in an ordinary civil claim. The usual remedy is a quashing order, which sets the decision aside so that the public body must decide again lawfully, or an order requiring or preventing particular action.

Do I need to use an appeal before applying for judicial review?

Usually, yes. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort, so if a statutory appeal, an internal review or a complaints procedure would provide an adequate remedy, the court will generally expect you to use it and will usually refuse permission if you have not. Many decisions have their own appeal routes and deadlines, such as planning appeals by applicants to the Planning Inspectorate and appeals against many licensing decisions to the magistrates' court.

What happens at the permission stage of judicial review?

A judge decides whether your claim is arguable, usually on the papers, after the public body has had 21 days from service to file an acknowledgment of service setting out why it contests the claim. Permission must be refused if you lack a sufficient interest, or if it is highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different. If permission is refused on the papers, you can ask for a hearing within seven days, unless the judge has recorded the claim as totally without merit.

Can a business challenge planning permission granted to someone else?

Yes, a business affected by a grant of planning permission can bring a judicial review claim, but it must be filed within six weeks of the grounds arising. Only the applicant can appeal a planning decision to the Planning Inspectorate, so judicial review is the route for third parties. The claim has to identify a legal flaw in how the decision was made, such as a failure to take a relevant consideration into account, because disagreement with the planning judgment is not enough.

Sources & further reading

• Ministry of Justice — Civil Procedure Rules Part 54: judicial review
• Ministry of Justice — Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review
• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide
• legislation.gov.uk — Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31: application for judicial review
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service — Fees in the civil and family courts: full list (EX50A)
• legislation.gov.uk — Procurement Act 2023, section 106: time limits on claims
• HM Courts & Tribunals Service — Administrative Court: bring a case to the court

This article is general information, not legal advice. The law changes and depends on your circumstances — always take advice on your specific situation before acting. Last reviewed 17 September 2026. Buzz Solicitors is a trading name of AD Solicitors Limited, a recognised body regulated by the SRA (no. 8011228).