Judicial Review

Overview

Judicial review is the court's supervision of the lawfulness of government decisions. In immigration it is the remedy of last resort: available where no appeal or administrative review lies, or where those remedies have been exhausted and the decision remains unlawful. It does not re-run the merits of your case. It asks whether the decision was made lawfully, rationally and fairly, and if it was not, the court can quash it and require the Home Office to decide again, properly.

Used precisely, judicial review moves cases nothing else can move, including removal decisions, unlawful detention, citizenship refusals and long-delayed decisions. Used loosely, it wastes money and goodwill. Our advice starts with an honest view of which yours is.

Removal directions or detention? Call 0330 174 4233 immediately.

When Judicial Review Is The Right Remedy

Typical immigration judicial reviews include:

• decisions certified so as to remove a right of appeal
• naturalisation and nationality refusals, which carry no statutory appeal
• unlawful detention and challenges to removal directions
• unreasonable delay in making a decision
• refusals of fresh claim submissions
• decisions where administrative review has failed and the error is one of law

If an appeal or review route exists, the court expects it used first. Choosing the wrong door wastes irreplaceable time.

Time Limits

Judicial review claims must be brought promptly, and in any event within a short outer limit measured in weeks and months, not years. Delay is itself a ground for refusing permission even inside the limit. If you think a decision is unlawful, the assessment needs to happen within days of the decision, not after other options have drifted.

How The Process Works

1. Pre-action letter. A formal letter before claim sets out the alleged unlawfulness and what is required to put it right. A meaningful proportion of cases resolve here, because a well-drafted letter shows the Home Office its litigation risk.

2. Permission. If no adequate response arrives, the claim is issued and a judge decides on the papers whether the case is arguable.

3. Substantive hearing. If permission is granted, the court hears full argument and decides whether the decision was unlawful.

4. Relief. Quashing orders, mandatory orders (including to decide within a set time), declarations and, in detention cases, damages.

Urgent applications, including injunctions to stop removals, run on hours rather than weeks, with out-of-hours procedures for genuine emergencies.

Costs, And Honest Advice About Them

Judicial review carries costs risk: the loser generally contributes to the winner's costs, and the court's permission filter exists precisely to stop weak claims early. We give a written assessment of the merits and the costs exposure before any step is taken, and if the claim is weak we say so plainly. A firm that recommends JR in every refusal case is not advising, it is billing.

FAQs