Judicial review principles

Scope and application of judicial review

Judicial review is a process by which the courts exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the exercise of public functions by public bodies. CPR 54.1 states that:

'a "claim for judicial review" means a claim to review the lawfulness of–
•
an enactment or
•
a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.’

Judicial review proceedings in England and Wales normally take place in the Administrative Court, which is part of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. The Upper Tribunal also has a limited judicial review jurisdiction.

This subtopic focuses primarily on proceedings in the Administrative Court, providing a range of practical guidance materials on the relevant principles and procedures. It also contains guidance on the core principles, procedural steps and distinctive features of judicial review in the Upper Tribunal, as well as in Scotland.

Judicial review remedies are discretionary. The Administrative Court can make the following orders:

•
a quashing order (the effect of which the court has power to delay, and the retrospective effect of which the court has power to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Cabinet Office publishes communiqué from seventh meeting of Interministerial Standing Committee

The Cabinet Office has published the meeting notes from the Interministerial Standing Committee's (IMSC) seventh meeting, which took place on 3 December 2024 via video conference. The meeting, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, Pat McFadden, was attended by ministers from the four governments of the UK with responsibility for intergovernmental relations. They discussed resilience and responses to the UK COVID-19 Inquiry, the Common Frameworks Programme, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA 2020). Ministers emphasised joint efforts for future resilience and reviewed the UK's approach to managing UKIMA 2020, noting a statutory review in 2025. Due to time constraints, a planned discussion on the Sewel Convention and UK legislation was deferred. The next IMSC meeting is scheduled for February 2025.

Public Law weekly highlights—20 February 2025

This week's edition of Public Law weekly highlights includes coverage of the new National Procurement Policy Statement and the reissue of Procurement Policy Notes ahead of PA 2023 coming into effect on 24 February 2025 plus expert analysis of the decision in Airwave v Secretary of State, where the court considered permission for late re-amendments to a statement of case in an emergency network contract dispute. Other cases covered include Working on Wellbeing Ltd Trading as Optima Health v SSWP, where the Court of Appeal found the DWP failed to exercise discretion by not seeking clarification of obvious errors in Optima’s tender, leading to wrongful exclusion from competition; and Higgs v Farmor's School, where the Court of Appeal ruled that the dismissal of Mrs Higgs was unlawful due to religious discrimination. The highlights further includes Brexit highlights, Brexit SIs and updates on constitutional and administrative law, equality and human rights, subsidy control and state aid and other Public Law news.

School did not discriminate when dismissing worker for voicing anti-abortion views

Law360: A teaching assistant has lost his religious discrimination claim against a school that fired him for openly sharing his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, with a tribunal ruling that the institution had to protect its reputation.