A JR is when the High Court of Justice review the lawfulness of a government decision or act affecting a person or group of people.
Claims are usually brought with the aim of overturning that decision.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2013-2014 to 2014-2015 has sought to limit the power of JR. The bill is now the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, receiving the Royal Assent on 12 February 2015.
JR is the fundamental constitution protection in the UK standing between the citizen and misuse of government power.

“One must be very careful about any proposals whose aim is to cut down the right to judicial review … The courts have no more important function than that of protecting citizens from the abuses and excesses of the executive – central government, local government, or other public bodies … the more power that a government has … the more important it is for the rule of law that such abuses and excesses can be brought before an impartial and experienced judge who can deal with them openly, dispassionately and fairly”

Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court

NB: The first stage of a JR claim is an application for permission to apply for JR. The High Court’s permission is required before the matter can proceed to a substantive hearing.

In what situations is JR a suitable option?

In general terms, judicial review may be appropriate where:

The challenge is based on an allegation that a public body has taken an unlawful public law decision; and
There is no adequate alternative remedy e.g. a right of appeal (JR is a ‘remedy of last resort’)

The High Court reviews the legality of the process of decision making, not the findings of fact leading to that decision (with a few exceptions).

Nature of the High Court’s Jurisdiction

The High Court’s statutory jurisdiction arises from the Senior Courts Act 1981, ss29 and 31

s29 – Mandatory, Prohibiting and Quashing Orders

s31 – Application for Judicial Review

Scope of JR (i.e. what type of decisions are open to review) is defined by case law.
Judicial review proceedings are public law proceedings.
High Court reviews the decisions of inferior tribunals and public bodies and inferior tribunals.

Inferior tribunals – the Courts below it according to hierarchy

Public Bodies – Bodies carrying out public functions such as Prison

As this not an appeal in the usual sense, the High Court is principally concerned with the process behind the decision being challenged.

Three Important Limitations

The availability of JR is limited by three (3) key tests:

Claimant needs sufficient standing/interest to bring a claim (“locus standi”);
Decision maker must be a person or body that is amenable to review;
Decision must be a ‘public law’ decision.

Without these three (3) factors in place, there is no scope for review.

If test 2 and 3 are not met, permission will not be granted.

Test 1 is treated differently.

WHO CAN APPLY?

C must have sufficient standing

s31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981:

“No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the High Court has been obtained in accordance with the rules of court; and the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interestin the matter to which the application relates.”

Who has sufficient interest?

Direct Interest– An individual who is personally affected by the decision will have standing

A Housing Association tenant who has just been evicted from their property;
Asylum seeker whose support is withdrawn contrary to the rules;
Must have standing throughout case: In Greaves v Boston Borough Council [2014] EWHC 3590 (Admin). A resident brought JR proceedings against the grant of conditional planning permission for a windfarm in their local area. During the proceedings, the Claimant managed to sell their property and move away, although the claim failed on substantive grounds. The High Court also felt that the Claimant ceased to have sufficient interest in the claim when he moved away. For that reason alone, the claim would have failed.

Indirect Interest: Leading Case

See Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617

NB: Standing should not be determined as a preliminary issue. At permission stage it is a “threshold” test, to prevent abuse of the system by ‘cranks and busybodies’. Test at full hearing is whether C can show a strong enough case on the merits in relation to his or her concern with the subject matter of the application.

Examples of Public Interest Claimants

Public interest groups e.g. Greenpeace, Child Poverty Action Group will usually, but not always, have standing – it depends on the facts of the particular case, they must have wider public importance.

See R v Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) [1994] 4 All E.R. 329. The Court found that organisation had national and international standing and was an entirely responsible and respected body with a genuine concern for the environment. This concern let to a bona fide interest in the subject matter for review.

Unincorporated associations (e.g. local resident’s groups objecting...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Judicial Review Notes.

Introduction Notes

Updated Introduction Notes

Judicial Review

WHAT IS JUDICIAL REVIEW?