Yes, the United Kingdom has judicial review. It is the process by which the High Court supervises public bodies to make sure they act within the law, follow fair procedures, and reach decisions a reasonable decision-maker could defend. One feature sets the UK system apart from many others: judges cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. They can quash a minister’s regulation, overturn a council’s decision, or declare a statute incompatible with human rights, but Parliament itself has the final word on what the law says.
What Judicial Review Actually Does
Judicial review in England and Wales is handled by the Administrative Court, part of the High Court. Its legal foundation is Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and the procedure sits in Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The process is supervisory, not appellate. An appeal asks a higher body whether the original decision was right. Judicial review asks whether the original decision was lawfully made. A planning authority might refuse permission for a housing development, and the court will not second-guess the planning judgment itself. But if the authority ignored a statutory requirement, failed to consult residents when legally required to, or relied on a policy it had no power to apply, the court can intervene.
Who Can Be Challenged, and Who Can Bring a Claim
Any body performing functions of a public nature is potentially subject to judicial review. Government departments, local councils, NHS trusts, police forces, and regulatory agencies all fall within scope. A private company running a prison or delivering social care on behalf of a council can also be challenged when performing those public duties, though its purely commercial work is not reviewable.
The claimant must have “sufficient interest” in the matter, a requirement set out in Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. In practice that means a real connection to the decision: someone directly affected by a benefits ruling, a planning permission, or a licensing decision will almost always have standing. Pressure groups and charities can bring claims where the issue is one of genuine public concern and no individual is better placed to raise it. Where the claim is brought under the Human Rights Act 1998, the test is narrower; the claimant must be, or would be, a “victim” of the unlawful act, meaning personally and directly affected rather than concerned as a matter of principle.
The Grounds for a Claim
The traditional grounds were set out in the GCHQ case (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374): illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. A fourth, proportionality, has developed through human rights cases.
Illegality
A decision is illegal when the decision-maker misunderstands the law, ignores a relevant legal requirement, or acts beyond the scope of their delegated powers. If a statute says a minister “must consult” before making a regulation, skipping that consultation makes the regulation unlawful. If an official applies a policy the enabling Act does not authorise, the resulting decision can be struck down. The court reads the law, works out what powers Parliament actually granted, and checks whether the decision-maker stayed inside them.
Irrationality
Irrationality, commonly called Wednesbury unreasonableness after the 1948 case that defined it, applies when a decision is so unreasonable that no rational person, properly directing themselves, could have reached it. The bar is deliberately high. Courts are not looking for decisions they disagree with. They are looking for decisions that defy logic or fly in the face of the evidence to such a degree that something must have gone fundamentally wrong in the reasoning.
Procedural Impropriety
Procedural impropriety covers failures of fairness. The right to a fair hearing is the common example: if you face a decision that affects your livelihood or liberty, you are entitled to know the case against you and to put your side before it is made. Bias, or the reasonable appearance of bias, is another branch; a decision-maker with a financial interest in the outcome, or who has publicly prejudged the issue, cannot fairly decide the case.
This ground also protects legitimate expectations. If a public body makes a clear promise or follows a consistent practice, and you rely on it to your detriment, the body cannot simply abandon it without good reason. The promise does not have to be a formal guarantee; a published policy or repeated assurances from officials can be enough.
Proportionality
Where a decision engages rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998, the court applies proportionality rather than simple rationality. It asks four questions: whether the restriction on the right pursues a legitimate objective, whether the measure is rationally connected to that objective, whether a less intrusive measure could achieve the same aim, and whether the measure strikes a fair balance between the individual’s right and the public interest. This test gives courts more room to scrutinise the substance of a decision than Wednesbury does, which is why human rights challenges are often harder for public bodies to defend.
The Hard Limit: Parliament
The single biggest difference between UK judicial review and the equivalent process in countries like the United States or Germany is that UK judges cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty means that a statute passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent is the supreme form of law. If Parliament passes a law that judges consider unjust or poorly drafted, they must apply it. Their role is to interpret legislation, not to veto it.
Secondary legislation is different. Regulations, orders, and other instruments made by ministers under powers delegated by an Act of Parliament are fully reviewable. If a minister’s regulation exceeds the authority granted by the parent Act, the court can quash it. Most practical judicial review activity takes place here, because government policy is overwhelmingly implemented through secondary legislation.
Declarations of Incompatibility
The Human Rights Act 1998 built a compromise. Under Section 4, if a higher court is satisfied that a provision of primary legislation is incompatible with a Convention right, it can issue a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration does not invalidate the law, does not stop it from being enforced, and does not bind the parties to the case. It is a formal judicial signal to Parliament that the law needs changing.1Legislation.gov.uk. Human Rights Act 1998, Section 4 Declaration of Incompatibility Only certain courts can issue one: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, and their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In practice Parliament has usually responded by amending the offending legislation, but it is not legally obliged to.2UK Parliament. Written Evidence from the Ministry of Justice
Ouster Clauses
Parliament can also insert ouster clauses into legislation, provisions that explicitly remove the court’s power to review certain decisions. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 is a recent example. Section 2 removed the ability to judicially review the Upper Tribunal’s decisions refusing permission to appeal from the First-tier Tribunal, shutting down what were known as “Cart” judicial reviews.3Legislation.gov.uk. Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Courts have historically treated ouster clauses with suspicion and read them narrowly, but Parliament’s power to include them is undisputed.
Deadlines, Permission, and the Letter Before Claim
Judicial review has strict deadlines that trip up many potential claimants. The claim form must be filed “promptly” and, in any event, no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose. For planning decisions, the limit is just six weeks. These deadlines cannot be extended by agreement between the parties, and courts enforce them rigorously.4Legislation.gov.uk. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 – Part 54
The “promptly” requirement is the part that catches people out. Filing on day 89 of a 90-day window is technically within three months, but the court can still refuse permission if it decides you did not act promptly. If you knew about the decision in week one and sat on it for two months before instructing a solicitor, a judge may treat that delay as reason enough to shut the door.
Every claim must then pass the permission stage. The court reviews the paperwork and decides whether the claim is arguable, filtering out hopeless cases before they consume court time. If permission is refused on the papers, the claimant can request an oral hearing to argue the point; failing at both stages ends the claim.5Justice UK. Part 54 – Judicial Review and Statutory Review
Before filing anything, claimants are expected to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review. The centrepiece is the Letter Before Claim, a formal letter to the public body setting out which decision is being challenged, why it is said to be unlawful, and what remedy is sought. The letter gives the body a chance to reconsider, correct its error, or explain itself without the expense of court proceedings.6Justice UK. Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review Skipping the protocol has real consequences; a claimant who rushes straight to litigation risks an adverse costs order even if the underlying claim succeeds. The only exception is a truly urgent case, such as an imminent removal from the UK.7Justice UK. Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols
What the Court Can Order
When a court finds that a public body acted unlawfully, it has several remedies. All of them are discretionary; a judge can refuse a remedy even after finding an error, for example if the mistake made no real difference to the outcome or if granting the order would cause serious public disruption.
- A quashing order nullifies the original decision, treating it as though it never had legal effect. The body must then reconsider the matter lawfully.8UK Parliament. Legislative Scrutiny: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – Joint Committee on Human Rights
- A mandatory order compels the body to carry out a legal duty it has failed to perform.
- A prohibiting order prevents the body from taking a planned action that would be unlawful.
- A declaration states the legal position without compelling any specific action.
- An injunction orders a party to do or refrain from doing something, often as an interim measure while the case is pending.
The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 added two variations on the quashing order. A suspended quashing order delays its effect to a future date, giving the body time to correct its approach. A prospective-only quashing order declares the decision unlawful going forward but leaves past actions taken under it untouched.9GOV.UK. Judicial Review and Courts Bill Fact Sheet These tools let courts address illegality without unravelling everything built on the quashed decision.
The Cost of Bringing a Claim
Judicial review is expensive, and financial risk is the single biggest deterrent for ordinary claimants. The general rule is that the losing party pays the winning party’s legal costs. Lose, and you face your own solicitor’s bill plus potentially a five- or six-figure bill from the government’s legal team.10Justice UK. Part 44 – General Rules About Costs
Court filing fees are modest by comparison. As of April 2025, applying for permission in the Administrative Court costs £169, with a further £424 if you request an oral reconsideration after refusal on the papers.11GOV.UK. Court and Tribunal Fees: Updates from April 2025 Legal aid remains available for most judicial review claims in England and Wales, subject to financial eligibility. In environmental cases falling under the Aarhus Convention, cost caps limit what an unsuccessful individual claimant can be ordered to pay to £5,000, or £10,000 for organisations. Courts can also make costs capping orders in non-environmental cases where the risk of disproportionate costs would otherwise deter a meritorious claim.
Scotland and Northern Ireland
Everything above describes the system in England and Wales. Scotland has its own judicial review procedure, handled by the Court of Session rather than the Administrative Court; the Court Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 brought it closer to the English model by introducing a three-month time limit and reforming the test for standing. Northern Ireland has its own High Court procedure. The core principles of legality, rationality, and fairness apply across all three jurisdictions, but the procedural rules, court structures, and specific time limits differ. Anyone considering a challenge should confirm which jurisdiction applies before taking any other step.