Judicial Review Solicitors
Specialist judicial review solicitors acting for individuals, companies and public bodies.
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.
Our extensive expertise is reflected in the legal directories, where we are recognised as a Band 1 firm by Chambers & Partners for Administrative and Public Law (Mainly Commercial) and Administrative and Public Law (Mainly Public Sector and Charities), and as a Tier 1 firm by the Legal 500 for Administrative and Public Law.
Where we can help
judicial review cases
- Acting for a private company as an interested party in respect of a major judicial review challenge pertaining to PPE procurement.
- Acting for a group of companies in the High Court and Court of Appeal challenging third party notices issued by HMRC following a mutual legal assistance request.
- Defending the Payment Systems Regulator in a commercial JR challenge by ATM operators.
- Defending the Financial Conduct Authority in a challenge made by Rosneft arising out of the EU sanctions on the Russian Federation.
- Advising a group of companies in respect of possible challenges to changes brought about by legislation.
- Acting for the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries to defend a challenge brought by a former fellow.
- Acting for the Payment Systems Regulator in defending a challenge to a decision concerning independent ATM operators.
- 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 the General Dental Council in defending a challenge to an increase in annual registration fees for dentists.
- Acting for a major political party in a challenge against ITV’s election broadcasting.
- Acting for an intervener in a judicial review of the Tavistock Clinic and its policy on prescribing puberty blockers.
- Acting for a public interest group in prospective judicial review proceedings against the University of Essex in connection with the implementation of the Reindorf Review.
- 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 Superintendent Robyn Williams in successfully defending a challenge brought by the Metropolitan Police Service against a decision of the Police Appeals Tribunal.
- 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.
our Judicial Review team
Frequently Asked 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 reason
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.
ready to discuss your matter?
Let us take it from here