Judicial Review: Get Legal Assistance & Guidance
At Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors, we provide legal representation to those seeking Immigration Judicial Reviews.
Speak with a member of our team today, or fill out the form and we will get back to you in 24 hours.
Understanding Judicial Reviews
A judicial review is not about determining whether the decision itself is right or wrong but about ensuring that the correct legal process is followed in making that decision. The process assesses whether a public body has acted lawfully, fairly, and reasonably. This covers decisions made by government agencies, local councils, regulatory entities, and other bodies that fulfil public services.
Importantly, judicial review does not give the courts the power to substitute their own decision for that of the public body. The court will not reverse a ruling only because it disagrees with the outcome.
Instead, it will examine whether the authority acted within its legal limits and adhered to established procedures. If the court finds the decision unlawful, it may be quashed or sent back to the public body to be reconsidered lawfully.
In some cases, judicial review is the only legal route available for challenging determinations made by public bodies. However, it is a remedy of last resort, which means that the claimant must usually exhaust all other potential solutions, such as an appeal, before pursuing judicial review.
Who Can File a Claim for Judicial Review?
Not everyone can bring forward a judicial review claim. To be eligible, you must have what the courts call “standing,” meaning you must be directly affected by the decision in question. This could be an individual impacted by the decision or an organisation with a vested interest in the matter.
For example, community groups or public interest organisations may be eligible if the issue affects their purpose or the public at large. The court assesses whether the claimant has sufficient interest in the case to pursue legal action. Without this standing, the court is unlikely to accept the claim.
Get immediate assistance and guidance on a Judicial Review matter by calling
0207 269 9590 or click here to contact us.
What Decision Can You Challenge Through a Judicial Review?
Judicial review allows individuals and organisations to challenge decisions, actions, or inactions made by public bodies carrying out public functions. Public bodies include government departments, local authorities, police forces, NHS trusts, regulatory bodies, and even courts and tribunals. These entities are subject to judicial review when performing duties tied to their public responsibilities.
For example, if a local authority decides on a planning application, that decision may be challengeable. However, if the authority acts as a private entity, such as in staff employment or contract negotiations, its actions fall outside the scope of judicial review.
Additionally, private companies performing public functions may also be subject to judicial review if their actions violate public law principles.
What Are the Grounds for a Judicial Review?
Judicial review claims are primarily based on three grounds: illegality, procedural unfairness, and irrationality. Each of these grounds offers a different way to challenge the lawfulness of a public body’s decision.
- Illegality: This ground applies when a public body has acted beyond the powers granted to it by law (known as ultra vires). A decision may be considered illegal if the authority misinterpreted the law or exercised its power in a way that Parliament did not intend.
- Procedural Unfairness: Procedural fairness requires public bodies to follow proper processes when making decisions. If the proper procedures are not obeyed, it may be grounds for judicial review. This could involve situations where a decision-maker was biased or where an individual affected by a decision was not given the opportunity to present their case.
- Irrationality: Also referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness, irrationality arises when a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority, acting reasonably, would have made it. It’s a rare ground for judicial review, but it is available when a decision defies logic or accepted moral standards.
Additionally, human rights violations can be grounds for judicial review if a public authority’s actions are incompatible with the rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, if the public authority acted per a law passed by Parliament, the decision may not be considered unlawful, even if it violates human rights.
The Process of Applying for a Judicial Review
Applying for a judicial review begins with the pre-action stage, where the claimant sends a pre-action protocol letter to the public body in question. This letter outlines why the decision is considered unlawful and requests the public body to take corrective action within a specified period, typically 14 days.
The pre-action letter is essential as it can sometimes lead to a solution without the court’s intervention. If the public body does not respond satisfactorily, the claimant can proceed to the next stage.
Next is the permission stage, where the claimant applies for permission from the administrative court to bring a judicial review claim. A judge checks the application and supporting documents, including a claim form and legal arguments.
The court will then decide if there is an arguable case for judicial review. If permission is granted, the case moves forward; if denied, the claimant may request an oral hearing to reconsider the decision.
Once permission is granted, the case proceeds to the final hearing. At this hearing, both the claimant and the public body (the defendant) present their legal arguments before a judge.
At this stage, the court reviews the lawfulness of the public body’s decision, focusing on whether correct procedures were followed and if the decision was made within legal limits. The judge may issue a ruling immediately or reserve judgement to be delivered later.
If the judicial review is successful, the court may issue a remedy, such as quashing the decision or requiring the public body to reconsider the matter. However, if the claimant loses, they may be responsible for paying the defendant’s legal costs.
How Long Do Judicial Review Cases Take?
The timeframe for a judicial review case can vary based on its complexity and court availability. Typically, the process can take three to six months, from filing the initial application to the final decision. Urgent cases, such as immigration or asylum, may be expedited and resolved in a few weeks.
However, more complex cases might take longer, extending up to a year or more. It’s important to note that there are strict time limits for starting a judicial review, usually within 3 months of the decision being challenged. Engaging a solicitor early can help streamline the process and meet deadlines.
Our Success Stories
The Role of Legal Assistance in Judicial Review Claims
Legal assistance is essential in navigating the complexities of judicial review claims. Given the strict procedures and tight deadlines involved, the expertise of a solicitor can make a significant difference in the outcome. A solicitor experienced in public law can help to ensure your claim is presented correctly and meets the necessary legal standards, giving you the best chance of success.
Moreover, judicial review cases require in-depth legal analysis and precision in filing the necessary paperwork, such as the claim form and supporting documents. A solicitor ensures that all legal arguments are thoroughly prepared, meeting the high standards required for the court to grant permission to proceed.
Legal assistance also brings strategic insight into the judicial review process. It helps you evaluate whether your case has merit and advises on the most effective approach. By providing clear and professional guidance, a solicitor can safeguard your interests and increase the likelihood of a favourable decision.
Especially in complex and high-stakes cases like these, the value of legal assistance cannot be overstated.
Let Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors Help You
Facing a legal challenge can be overwhelming, especially when it involves complex matters like judicial review. At Gulbenkian Andonian Solicitors, we understand the gravity of these situations and are here to provide expert legal representation every step of the way. Whether you’re dealing with a public authority decision that impacts your rights or you’re unsure how to proceed, our experienced team is ready to help.
With decades of experience in judicial review cases, we’ll ensure your claim is handled with care and precision. From the initial consultation to representation in court, we are committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for you. Contact us today for reliable, expert legal assistance tailored to your unique situation.
FAQs About Judicial Reviews
The judicial review process in England and Wales allows individuals to challenge decisions made by public bodies. It involves filing an application for judicial review in an administrative Court, a branch of the High Court, where the court examines whether the decision was lawful and followed proper procedures.
Learn more about Immigration Judicial Review Applications
For a judicial review, you’ll need legal representation from a solicitor who specialises in public law and has experience handling judicial review cases. They will guide you through each stage, from drafting the pre-action protocol letter to representing you in court if necessary.
The pre-action stage is the initial phase, where you must attempt to resolve the issue before filing for judicial review. This includes sending a ‘letter before claim’ to the relevant authority and allowing them time to respond. If the matter is not settled, you may proceed with the application in court.
Legal aid is available for judicial review in certain circumstances. You may be eligible for legal aid funding to assist with the costs of legal representation, depending on your financial situation and the merits of your case. However, our firm does not deal with legal aid cases.
If you win your judicial review case, the court may issue a remedy, such as a quashing order, which means it is declared invalid. The court may also order the public body to reconsider the decision following the correct legal procedures. In some cases, additional remedies like a mandatory order to take specific action or a prohibiting order to prevent further unlawful actions may be granted.
Dr. Bernard Andonian
Founder, Immigration Judicial Review Solicitor & Former Judge
Dave Vasoodaven
Judicial Review Solicitor and Expert
Fadi Farhat
Immigration Judicial Review Legal Expert