Solicitar una revisión judicial
Cómo impugnar una decisión de un organismo público mediante revisión judicial en el Tribunal Superior.
Visión general
Judicial review is the process by which the High Court supervises the exercise of public power. It allows individuals and organisations to challenge decisions, actions, or failures to act by public bodies (government departments, local authorities, regulators, tribunals, and other bodies exercising public functions). Judicial review does not examine whether a decision was 'right' or 'wrong' — it examines whether the decision was made lawfully. The grounds for judicial review are illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural unfairness. The process is governed by Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Quién puede usar este proceso
- The decision was made by a public body or a body exercising a public function
- You have 'sufficient interest' (standing) in the matter — you are directly affected by the decision
- You have exhausted all other remedies (internal appeals, ombudsmen, tribunals) before applying to the court
- You apply promptly and in any event within 3 months of the decision (strictly enforced)
Proceso paso a paso
Send a Pre-Action Protocol Letter
Before issuing proceedings, you must send a letter before claim to the public body in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. The letter must identify the decision challenged, set out the grounds for challenge, explain why you say the decision is unlawful, and state the remedy sought. The defendant should respond within 14 days.
- The letter must comply with the Pre-Action Protocol — failure to follow it may result in costs consequences
- Clearly identify the specific decision, act, or omission you are challenging
- State the grounds: illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, legitimate expectation, or breach of human rights
- State what remedy you are seeking: quashing order, mandatory order, prohibiting order, declaration, or injunction
Apply for Permission (the N461 Form)
Judicial review is a two-stage process. First, you must obtain the court's permission to proceed. You do this by filing a claim form (N461) with the Administrative Court, together with a detailed statement of facts and grounds, a witness statement, the decision under challenge, and any relevant documents. You must also serve the claim on the defendant and any interested parties.
- The claim must be filed promptly and in any event within 3 months of the decision — the court can refuse permission even within 3 months if there has been undue delay
- The statement of grounds should be concise and focused on the legal errors, not a rehearing of the merits
- You must include a costs schedule and consider applying for interim relief if urgent
- Legal aid may be available for judicial review — check with the Legal Aid Agency
Permission Decision
A High Court judge will consider the application for permission on the papers (without a hearing). The judge will grant permission if the case is 'arguable' — i.e., the grounds have a realistic prospect of success. If permission is refused on the papers, you can request an oral renewal hearing where you can make oral submissions. If permission is granted, the case proceeds to a full hearing.
- About 60% of permission applications are refused on the papers
- An oral renewal hearing gives you a second chance — prepare full submissions
- If permission is refused at the oral hearing, you can appeal to the Court of Appeal (with that court's permission)
- The defendant must file detailed grounds of resistance and evidence once permission is granted
Preparation for the Full Hearing
Once permission is granted, both parties prepare for the substantive hearing. The defendant files detailed grounds of resistance. Evidence is exchanged (judicial review is primarily decided on documentary evidence — oral evidence and cross-examination are rare). The parties prepare a hearing bundle and skeleton arguments.
- Skeleton arguments should be concise (usually no more than 20 pages) and focused on the legal issues
- The hearing bundle should be paginated and indexed with an agreed bundle of authorities
- Consider whether any interested parties (e.g., affected third parties) should be joined to the proceedings
- The court may order a rolled-up hearing where permission and the substantive case are heard together
The Full Hearing
The full hearing takes place before a single High Court judge (or a Divisional Court for certain cases). The claimant's counsel presents their case, followed by the defendant's counsel and any interested parties. The hearing focuses on legal argument rather than factual evidence. The judge may give judgment at the end of the hearing or reserve it for a later date.
- Hearings typically last half a day to 2 days
- The court will not substitute its own decision — if the decision is quashed, it is usually remitted to the public body to make a fresh decision lawfully
- Human Rights Act arguments (proportionality, Article 6 fair trial, etc.) are commonly raised alongside traditional grounds
- The losing party will normally be ordered to pay the winning party's reasonable costs
Remedies and Appeals
If the court finds the public body acted unlawfully, it can grant: a quashing order (nullifying the decision), a mandatory order (requiring the body to do something), a prohibiting order (preventing future unlawful action), a declaration (stating the legal position), or damages (in limited circumstances, usually where a human rights violation is established). Appeals from judicial review decisions go to the Court of Appeal (with permission).
- A quashing order is the most common remedy — the decision is set aside and the body must reconsider
- The court may refuse relief even if unlawfulness is established, if the outcome would have been the same regardless
- An appeal must be filed within 21 days of the judgment
- Some judicial review claims (immigration, planning) have specific procedural rules and shorter time limits
Costes
Advertencias importantes
The 3-month time limit is strictly enforced and runs from the date of the decision, not the date you became aware of it. In planning cases the limit is 6 weeks.
Judicial review can be very expensive. If you lose, you will normally be ordered to pay the other side's costs. Consider applying for a Protective Costs Order (now an Aarhus costs cap in environmental cases) to limit your exposure.
The court reviews the lawfulness of a decision, not its merits. Even if the decision is quashed, the public body may lawfully reach the same decision again if it follows the correct process.