Public Law, Judicial Review & Claims Against Public Bodies
Holding public bodies to account when a decision is unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair.
Public bodies must act lawfully, fairly and rationally. When a government department, regulator or other public authority gets a decision wrong, judicial review is the route by which the English courts hold it to account. We act in judicial review and related claims against public bodies, with particular experience in decisions affecting Chinese-speaking individuals and businesses.
Judicial review
Judicial review allows the Administrative Court — and, for immigration and certain other matters, the Upper Tribunal — to review the lawfulness of a decision by a government department, regulator or other public body, on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural unfairness, including breach of a legitimate expectation the public body has itself created. Before a claim is issued, a claimant must ordinarily follow the pre-action protocol, setting out the grounds of challenge and giving the public body a fair opportunity to respond or reconsider. Where a decision threatens immediate harm, urgent interim relief can be sought, including out of hours. A judicial review claim must normally be filed within three months of the decision under challenge — in practice often sooner, and shorter still in immigration matters.
Our experience
We acted for the applicant in R (Wang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 679; [2023] UKSC 21, a Supreme Court authority on the Tier 1 (Investor) migrant visa route, acting for a cohort of over 100 Mandarin-speaking investors challenging Home Office decisions on their Tier 1 (Investor) applications. Read the firm's note on the ruling. We also act more generally in civil claims against public authorities, including regulators, where the exercise of a statutory power is said to engage a claimant's Convention rights or common-law duties.
Immigration judicial review
Immigration judicial review is handled within our immigration practice. Immigration Appeals & Judicial Review remains the firm's canonical page for challenges to Home Office refusals, removal decisions and certification decisions, covering administrative review, First-tier and Upper Tribunal appeals, and judicial review in the Administrative Court. A public-law issue arising in an employment context — for example a claim against a public-sector employer — is handled within our Employment Disputes & Litigation practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to bring a judicial review claim?
A judicial review claim must normally be filed within three months of the decision challenged, and the claim must in any event be brought promptly — the court can refuse permission even within the three-month window if there has been unjustified delay. Immigration judicial review often has an even shorter practical window. Early advice is essential.
What remedies can judicial review provide?
The Administrative Court can grant a quashing order (setting aside the unlawful decision), a mandatory order (requiring the public body to act), a prohibiting order (preventing unlawful action), and a declaration of the parties' legal position, together with damages in limited circumstances. Interim relief, including urgent injunctions, is available where a decision threatens immediate harm.
Is there a costs risk in bringing judicial review?
Yes. Judicial review follows the ordinary costs rules — an unsuccessful claimant may be ordered to pay the public body's costs, subject to any costs-protection order the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. Costs risk should be assessed and explained before a claim is issued.