Public authorities, including local councils, government departments and ministers, police forces and regulatory bodies, carry responsibility to make a wide range of decisions that can have serious impacts on our lives. We trust and expect those making these decisions to act within their powers, ensure the decision-making process is both rational and fair, and we fully expect them to act within the law.
But what can you do if you suspect that a decision has been made unlawfully, or without following due process? A Judicial Review may be the best course of action.
What is a Judicial Review?
A Judicial Review is a type of legal case where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public authority, by looking at how the decision was reached and whether the correct processes were followed.
Who can bring a Judicial Review?
A Judicial Review can be brought by any person or organisation who has been adversely affected by a decision made by a public authority.
Are there time limits for bringing a Judicial Review?
An application for a Judicial Review must typically be brought as soon as practicably possible and no later than three months from the decision subject to challenge.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, a Judicial Review regarding a decision around planning permission must be brought within six weeks. Further, a Judicial Review in respect of a procurement decision must usually be brought within 30 days.
There are a number of factors to bear in mind when calculating the timeframe and so it is vital that you seek advice as a matter of urgency as soon as the decision that you wish to challenge is made.
When can a Judicial Review be used?
You can only use a Judicial Review when there are no other or further options to challenge a decision, such as by making an appeal. A Judicial Review should be a last resort.
What are the grounds for a Judicial Review?
A decision can be challenged through a Judicial Review on the following grounds:
- The public authority did not have the power to make the decision or if they did, they may have reached it by either considering irrelevant information, or through not considering all relevant factors. It may also be the case that the authority restricted themselves through having rigid policies.
- The decision made was irrational or unreasonable.
- Procedural Unfairness – the public authority did not follow fair procedures, including ensuring the decision made was impartial.
- Breach of Human Rights laws.
- There was a legitimate expectation that the authority would act in a certain way.
What happens when a Judicial review concludes?
If the Judicial Review has been successful, the Judge will typically quash the original decision. The public authority will then have to make the decision again, ensuring that all processes are followed correctly. It should be noted that that this may not change the original decision made by the authority.
Whilst not common, the Judge may also make mandatory orders requiring the public authority to take certain steps. In very rare circumstances, the Judge may replace the decision complained of with their own decision.
How can we help?
At Harding Evans, our expert team of Solicitors act on a wide-range of Judicial Review matters, examining both local and national Government decisions as well as the full range of public authorities. We regularly act in Judicial Review cases in areas involving potential breaches of the Human Rights Act/civil liberties, health and social care, and housing.
If you have been affected by a decision made by a public authority which you believe to be unlawful, please contact our Public Law team. They will review your case, advise on whether you are able to bring a Judicial Review, and guide you through the process.
