This page draws together a monthly selection of articles and features supplied by LexisNexis for publication on Local Government Lawyer and Public Law Today. We also showcase other publications and resources that LexisNexis produces to support lawyers working in the public sector. To see all articles, please click here.
Slide background

Defending a claim for judicial review

Predeterminiation iStock 000016468646Small 146x219This LexisPSL Public Law checklist, produced in partnership with Stephen Hocking of DAC Beachcroft highlights the key steps and considerations for defending a judicial review claim.

On receipt of pre-action protocol letter

Ensure the pre-action protocol for judicial review has been followed

- The pre-action protocol for judicial review should be followed unless extreme urgency or other good reason dictates otherwise.

- Failure to do so may have cost consequences and should be drawn to the court's attention in the acknowledgement of service.

Ensure the claim is within time limit for judicial review

- Although it is more of a concern for the claimant, note that the need to comply with the pre-action protocol does not affect the obligation to bring a claim promptly and within three months of the grounds arising (unless an alternative time-limit applies).

-,See Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol under the headings Time limits and Interplay between complying with the pre-action protocol and the time limits for bringing a judicial review claim.

Triage applying the basic tests for a claim

•     Immediately on receipt of a pre-action letter a high level triage should take place:

Criteria  Points to note Further guidance
 
Is the threatened claim against the correct defendant (did the named defendant actually take the action or decision complained of)?
Where the named defendant is not responsible for the action or decision complained of, the claimant should be promptly informed. It is not necessary or appropriate to seek to respond to the claim in any more detail.

Practice Note: What is a public authority?

Practice Note: Judicial Review—how to start proceedings

Is the threatened claim actually a public law matter (as opposed to, say, a claim in tort or for breach of contract)? Where the threatened claim is exclusively not a public law matter, the claimant should be informed. It would be good practice to pass the pre-action letter to the team which would be responsible for responding to the relevant private law claim and for them to reply substantively. Practice Note: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used
Is the threatened claim reasonably clear? If the threatened claim is not clear (ie, comprehensible) it will usually be appropriate and necessary to ask the claimant to clarify the complaint, stating that the pre-action letter cannot be replied to until this is done. This should be done only if truly necessary, and not merely if a claim is disorganised, badly expressed, or does not explicitly identify recognised public law concepts. For litigants in person regard should be had (here and throughout) to the possibility that they have a relevant protected characteristic which hinders them in engaging with the defendant, (for example, a learning difficulty) and if so what steps if any might be desirable under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Practice Note: Public sector equality duty
What is the date of the action or decision complained of and when will time to bring a challenge expire (or has it expired already)? If limitation has expired this point will be taken in the pre-action reply (below, but be aware the Court may extend time under CPR 3.1(2)(a) and see the notes to CPR 54.5). If it has not expired the date should be diarised. If a claim form is issued it should be served within seven days, so a likely window for service (and hence acknowledgement, see below) can be identified. If it is thought that witness evidence might be needed with the acknowledgement, the availability of the potential witness(es) during the likely period for preparing the acknowledgement should be established.

Practice Note: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol

Practice Note: Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases

Discharging the duty of candour

- If a claim passes the basic tests above, immediate consideration should be given to the preservation of documents and the discharge of the duty of candour throughout any possible case.

- It is essential to appreciate that the duty of candour extends beyond information relevant to complaints actually made, and encompasses all material relevant to the legality of the action/decision under challenge. It also applies at all stages of the case.

- It is advisable to document steps taken to discharge the duty of candour.

- See Practice Note: Duty of candour (defendant’s) and disclosure requirements.

Responding to the pre-action letter

- Typically a defendant is given 14 days to reply to a pre-action letter.

- Adherence to the Pre-action protocol for judicial review does not stop time running. Claimants may give a defendant less time to reply, particularly if the time limit for a challenge is approaching. If more time is needed a holding reply should be sent proposing a reasonable extension, giving reasons.

- The pre-action reply should be in a standard form set out at Annex B to the Pre-action protocol for judicial review. Relevant documentation should ordinarily be disclosed at the same time. Where this is not possible, reasons should be given.

- If the claimant is a litigant in person, the defendant must serve a copy of the Pre-action protocol for judicial review on the claimant with the response (regardless of whether or not it is clear that the claimant is aware of the protocol).

- The reply to a pre-action letter is a defendant's first opportunity to state its case. It should be exploited in full, with a view to complying with CPR 1.3 by narrowing or eliminating issues in dispute, to setting out the defendant's substantive case early, and to position the defendant favourably for any costs arguments. However caution as to detail is needed as the defendant may not have conducted a full review of all potentially relevant documents, and is unlikely to have made any progress with witness evidence.

Deciding whether to defend

- In some cases the defendant may have no choice (if it is a tribunal and is functus, for example). Otherwise the questions are: is the case properly defensible? Is it cost effective to defend?

- Where a review of the pre-action letter, the defendant's documents and likely case leads to the conclusion that the action/decision complained of is likely to be found to be legally flawed, that conclusion should be admitted to the claimant and arrangements made to retake the action/decision lawfully. Conceding the case at this stage should avoid costs liability.

- Where the review suggests the action/decision will be likely to be found to be legally robust, it is necessary to defend the case. The decision cannot be improved by being revisited, and there is an expectation that public bodies will exercise their powers and implement their decisions without being deflected by the threat of challenge.

- Where the review suggests that the action/decision will be found to be legally robust, but there is significant uncertainty, the defendant should decide whether it is cost effective to defend. Where the uncertainty as to the legality of the decision stems from an action or inaction of the defendant, it may be both appropriate and cost effective to re-take the decision 'correcting' the arguable defect. The more arguable the defect, and the fewer people other than the claimant who are affected by the retaking of the decision, the more appropriate this may be. Where the uncertainty stems from an uncertainty as to the state of the law it is unlikely to be appropriate to retake the decision. The retaken decision will be no more certain.

Where the decision referred to was taken more than 3 months ago

- Particular care is needed where a decision was taken more than three months before the pre-action letter, and the pre-action letter expressly or by implication invites the defendant to reconsider its decision.

- Reconsideration may defeat what would otherwise have been a good point on timing. The pre-action reply must be clear whether it is explaining the past decision, or whether a reconsideration and a fresh decision have taken place.

- See Practice Notes: Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol and Judicial review time limits—extensions and urgent cases.

Use of alternative dispute resolution

- If the claimant has proposed ADR it is necessary to consider this specifically and to give reasons if the proposal is rejected.

- If proceedings are issued, the parties may be required by the court to provide evidence that ADR has been considered. There may be adverse cost consequences if this is not done.

- See Practice Note: ADR and the CPR—court’s approach pre-action.

Interested parties

- The pre-action correspondence should identify any interested parties to the proposed claim. Interested parties are persons directly affected by the claim.

- See Practice Note: Judicial review—Interested parties and interveners.


On receipt of claim form

Claim form with no pre-action protocol

- If a pre-action letter was not sent, the claim form will be the first indication that a claim is threatened.

- The actions set out above should be carried out, save that an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of resistance will be prepared rather than a pre-action reply.

- In those circumstances the fact that the claimant has not complied with the pre-action protocol should be highlighted, unless the reason for not having done so is obvious and legitimate.

Questions immediately on receipt of a claim form

- Are the grounds of claim substantially the same as foreshadowed in the pre-action correspondence?

- Are the remedies sought substantially the same as foreshadowed in the pre-action correspondence?

- Does the evidence filed with the claim cast the decision to defend the claim into doubt?

- Are there any interested parties not named by the claimant?

- Does the claim seek expedition, an interim remedy, a protective costs order (PCO) or judicial review costs capping order (JRCCO)?

- If the claim seeks expedition or an interim remedy it will be necessary to respond within a shortened timescale and/or to address the question of interim remedy, PCO or JRCCO. See also Practice Notes: Costs for judicial review—general principles and Costs for judicial review—protective costs orders (PCOs), judicial review costs capping orders (JRCCOs) and interveners

- Should the decision be suspended? Without the grant of interim relief, lodging a claim for judicial review does not prevent the defendant implementing the action/decision under challenge. A pragmatic decision on whether voluntarily to suspend the decision should be reached, taking account inter alia: the strength of the case; the effect on interested parties; the likely timescale of a challenge, and the ease or difficulty with which a decision could be reversed if found to be unlawful

The defendant should consider making its own application for expedition if it voluntarily decides the decision is suspended.

Strength of case assessment

- The strength of the case must be re-assessed in light of the claim as pleaded and its supporting evidence.

- The defendant should re-evaluate whether it is correct to defend the case, and if not the case should be conceded.

- Particular issues to investigate in most cases include: Were the defendant's own processes followed? Does the defendant have any relevant policy and if so was it followed or taken into account? Was the decision taken by the correct individual or body? Was due regard had to any relevant equality issue? Does any record or communication of the decision correspond with relevant policies and processes?

- The discharge of the duty of candour should be revisited to establish whether any additional information has become relevant in light of the claim as now put.

Filing the acknowledgement of service

- The acknowledgement of service must be filed within 21 days of service of the claim form.

- It must be served on the claimant and any other person named in the claim form within seven days of filing, and sooner if practicable.

- Form N462 is required along with summary grounds of resistance. The documents filed in the claim bundle should be checked. Any important documents not included should be filed with the acknowledgement of service, as the defendant is under a duty to assist the court. Witness evidence is not required, (the rules are silent but in practice it may be filed).

- A judge considering permission on the papers will not have time to review a large body of evidence, nor is this appropriate for a decision on permission, so any evidence should be short and directly relevant to a ground on which permission might be refused). In any case early consideration should be given to who within the defendant will review the form N462 and summary grounds as these must be verified with a statement of truth.

- If costs are sought in the event permission is refused a form N260 should also be filed (see Mount Cook Land [2003] EWCA Civ 1346 and Practice Notes: Avoiding a judicial review and Judicial Review—how to start proceedings).

- The acknowledgement of service must set out a summary of grounds on which the claim is contested. In practice the summary should at least: provide an outline of the substantive grounds on which the case will be defended (there may at least be costs consequences if this is not done); and provide full detail on any points on which the defendant realistically anticipates permission may be refused, including arguments raised under section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), (see below)

In a particularly weak case the court should be invited to rule that the case is totally without merit at the same time as refusing permission.

- See Precedent: Summary grounds of resistance on behalf of the 1st, 2nd etc defendant.

Permission decision—points to note

- SCA 1981, s 31 (as amended) requires the court to refuse to grant relief on application for judicial review if it appears highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. The court may disregard this requirement for reasons of 'exceptional public interest'. The court may consider this question of its own motion, but must consider it if the defendant asks the court to do so. This requirement is expected to reduce the number of cases, as applications made solely as a tactical or delaying objective may be disposed of at the outset.

- Under amendments introduced by CJCA 2015, the court in future will be obliged to refuse permission if certain specified information about the financing of the claim has not been provided (see: SCA 1981, s 31(3) as amended).


Receipt of permission decision

Effect of permission decision

- Permission may be given, given for only some grounds, or refused.

- Unless permission is granted for all grounds, and provided the application was not certified as totally without merit, the claimant may request an oral reconsideration of the decision. The request must be filed within seven days of receiving the reasons for the decision. (CPR PD 54A para 8.5-6)

- The defendant is not required to file any further document or to attend the hearing (unless the Court directs otherwise) and it is not usual to do so. The costs of attending any hearing will not usually be awarded to the defendant.

- Unless permission is refused on all grounds, the defendant should reconsider the merits of the case in light of the Order made by the Court.

Detailed grounds

- Within 35 days of service of the Order giving permission the defendant must file detailed grounds of resistance, together with any evidence on which the defendant will rely which was not filed with the acknowledgement of service.

- If witness evidence is required and was not filed with the acknowledgement of service, it should be filed with the detailed grounds.

Skeleton arguments

- Skeleton arguments are due from the claimant 21 days before the hearing, and from the defendant 14 days before (CPR PD 54A says working days in both cases, this is thought to be an error). CPR PD 54A, para 15.3 details the required content as: a time estimate for the complete hearing, including delivery of judgment; a list of issues; a list of the legal points to be taken (together with any relevant authorities with page references to the passages relied on); a chronology of events (with page references to the bundle of documents); a list of essential documents for the advance reading of the court (with page references to the passages relied on) (if different from that filed with the claim form) and a time estimate for that reading; and a list of persons referred to.

- Skeleton arguments may be and most conveniently are filed electronically, to the correct dedicated email address given on the Administrative Court website.

- The claimant must also file the hearing bundle(s) at the same time as his/her skeleton argument, which must include any documents requested by the defendant.

This checklist produced in partnership with Stephen Hocking of DAC Beachcroft was originally published in LexisPSL Public Law. If you would like to read more quality content like this, then register for a free 1 week trial of LexisPSL.

More content from LexisNexis

June 19, 2020

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) - practice and procedure

This Property Disputes guidance note from LexisNexis provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
June 12, 2020

Quick guide to landlord’s remedies for breach of lease

The following property disputes guidance note from LexisNexis provides comprehensive and up to date legal information for commercial landlords.
June 05, 2020

The Public Law Outline 2014

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on key aspects of procedure and the PLO 2014 for public children proceedings.
May 07, 2020

Anti-social behaviour - powers to control behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

This LexisNexis Local Government guidance note, produced in partnership with Hardwicke Chambers, provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering the powers available to control behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
May 01, 2020

Anti-social behaviour - powers to close premises under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

This Local Government guidance note from LexisNexis provides comprehensive and up to date legal information outlining the powers available to local authorities to close premises where anti-social behaviour is taking place.
Coronavirus Hand sanitizer 146x219
April 23, 2020

Coronavirus – What’s the impact on the legal profession?

With Coronavirus dominating the news and the majority of Europe now entering different stages of lockdown due to the rise in uncertainties about the virus, LexisNexis has rounded up its latest articles discussing the pandemic.
Human Rights 96780326 s 146x219
April 23, 2020

Why is advancing the rule of law so important?

Have you ever considered your human rights? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines our various rights under the law, the most basic being: “We are all equal before the law."But, is this really the case?
April 16, 2020

Employment law and Covid-19

This following employment guidance note from LexisNexis provides comprehensive and up to date legal information on employment law changes caused by the Covid-19 outbreak.
Roadworks 54101373 s 146x219
February 28, 2020

Road traffic – order procedure notices

This Local Government guidance note from LexisNexis provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering road traffic orders, regulations, procedures and the powers available to local authorities.
Housing Rogue Landlord 99725772 s 146x219
February 13, 2020

Obtaining possession of a secure tenancy

Produced in partnership with Karl King of Hardwicke Chambers, this LexisNexis Local Government guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering the range of tenancy types for social housing and the processes involved in obtaining posession for each.
February 06, 2020

Local authority social care duties

The following Local Government guidance note, produced in partnership with Ros Ashcroft of DAC Beachcroft and Stephanie Townley of Addleshaw Goddard LLP provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering local authority duties towards social care.
January 31, 2020

Houses in multiple occupation

This LexisNexis Local Government guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering the management, licensing and definition of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).
December 13, 2019

Granting assured and assured shorthold tenancies

This practice note from LexisNexis explains the criteria for assured tenancies (AT) and assured shorthold tenancies (AST) and the exceptions to those criteria, the main terms of AT and ASTs, the position regarding succession, and summarises a landlord’s obligations in respect of energy efficiency, gas safety and other health and safety obligations, right to rent and tenancy deposits.
December 05, 2019

Assignment and succession of tenancy

Morayo Fagborun Bennett looks at the circumstances in which social housing tenancies can be transferred to another tenant.
November 29, 2019

Powers to control anti-social behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

This guidance note provides a comprehensive and up to date overview of powers to control anti-social behaviour under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Reform of anti-social behaviour powers (2014), Part 1 Civil Injunctions and Part 2 Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO).
Missiles 91309216 s. 146x219
October 11, 2019

Exploring the court’s power to block sale of arms to Saudi Arabia

Sue Willman, senior partner at Deighton Pierce Glynn, analyses the case of R (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade (Amnesty International and others intervening) and its implications for UK arms trade.
Airport travel 3160566 640
October 11, 2019

Court rejects challenges to Heathrow expansion

Charles Streeten, barrister at Francis Taylor Building, explains how the court came to reject the claims for judicial review of the Heathrow runway expansion in R (on the application of Spurrier) v Secretary of State for Transport and other cases.
Housing family 96709182 s
October 04, 2019

Exploring the limits of public authority’s liability for children

Duncan Fairgrieve and Jim Duffy, barristers at 1 Crown Office Row, examine the Supreme Court’s decision in Poole Borough Council v GN and another that the respondent local authority did not owe a common law duty of care to exercise its functions under the Children Act 1989 to protect the appellants, who were children of a family which it had housed, from harm at the hands of anti-social neighbours.
Dead end road 32516564 s 146x219
October 04, 2019

Abandoning a procurement exercise - when can a contracting authority extinguish a challenge?

Lucy James looks at the legal effect of a decision to abandon a procurement exercise and whether it extinguishes an accrued cause of action a bidder may have against a contracting authority for breaches of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 SI 2015/102 (PCR 2015).
Education cuts 93374247 s 146x219
August 23, 2019

‘Funding crisis’ - a detailed look at the funding shortage in UK schools

According to campaigners, more than 200 schools in England are cutting their school weeks short due to funding shortages. This raises questions over legal ramifications and the responsibility of the government. Jean Tsang, associate at Bates Wells and governor of a maintained primary school, addresses these questions and looks at the worrying effects of this ‘funding crisis’ on the ‘most vulnerable children’ in the educational system.
Cost cutting 21525611 s 146x219
August 16, 2019

Judicial review challenge over closure of children’s centres defeated by local authority

The case R (on the application of L, an infant (by his mother and litigation friend)) v Buckinghamshire County Council represents the first time when the High Court considered in detail the meaning of the ‘sufficiency duty’ in section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006 (ChA 2006) in the context of whether a council’s consultation on the closure of a number of children’s centres was unlawful or not. James Goudie QC examines the background to and the practical implications of the judgment.
Market 25240022 s 146x219
August 09, 2019

How does a local authority establish a market?

The LexisPSL team outline the powers available to local authorities looking to establish a new market.
School gate iStock 000003257894XSmall 146x219
August 02, 2019

Forced academisation of schools - is resistance futile?

What are the circumstances which lead to a school being forced to become an academy, and is there anything that can be done to stop it happening? Katie Michelon provides an overview of the forced academisation process, and explains the options available to schools, parents and local authorities when faced with the possibility of an Academy Order.
Plane passenger plane 19469 640 pixabay
June 13, 2019

Home or away?

Katherine Illsley outlines how a local authority should approach the situation where a parent to be assessed for the purposes of public children care lives in another jurisdiction.
House key iStock 000004543619XSmall 146x219
June 07, 2019

Tenant Fees Act 2019 - government guidance

The government recently published guidance on the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA 2019). Robin Stewart and David Smith of Anthony Gold Solicitors look at some of the key questions relating to the guidance, including enforcement, penalties and some controversial aspects such as guidance pertaining to payment of damages.
Choice 33452110 s 146x219
June 07, 2019

How should the courts approach cases with an ‘open’ pool of possible perpetrators?

Chris Stevenson, barrister at Fourteen, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re B (children: uncertain perpetrator) to allow a father’s appeal against a Family Court judge’s finding that he was within a pool of possible perpetrators responsible for sexually transmitting gonorrhoea to three of his children (registration required).
Planning 146x219
May 24, 2019

Court of Appeal finds permissive housing policies can restrict development elsewhere

In Gladman Developments Ltd v Canterbury City Council [2019] EWCA Civ 669, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by developer Gladman against the decision of the High Court to quash planning permission granted on appeal for a residential development on a site not allocated for development, not on previously developed land, and outside the existing built-up area.
Child safety gate 36045624 s 146x219
May 24, 2019

Safety first?

Daljit Kaur looks at the implications for disability discrimination of a case concerning a nursery-age child prevented from accessing provision over 15 hours.
UK map 66823434 s 146x219
May 17, 2019

The changing landscape of local authority Trading Standards prosecutions?

Richard Heller considers the potential impact of Qualter and others v Crown Court at Preston [2019] EWHC 906 (Admin) could have on the way regional Trading Standards services investigate and prosecute criminal offences (registration required).
Child removal iStock 000007583512XSmall 146x219
May 17, 2019

Wish they weren't here?

Can a parent with parental responsibility object to their child, who is subject to an interim care order, being taken on holiday by their foster parents?
Housing Rogue Landlord 99725772 s 146x219
May 10, 2019

Exploring the new guidance on greater protections from rogue landlords

Jason Hobday, associate at Womble Bond Dickinson, discusses the implications of recent government guidance documents which intend to enforce greater protections from rogue landlords (registration required).
Bias iStock 000008329150XSmall 146x219
May 09, 2019

Court finds judge in Uber licensing case was not biased

Philip Kolvin QC examines the High Court’s decision in R (United Cabbies Group) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court to dismiss the claimant’s application for judicial review of a district judge’s grant of an operator’s licence for London private hire vehicles to the third interested party, Uber.
Housing timer 45568205 s 146x219
May 03, 2019

End of the road?

Morayo Fagborun Bennett looks at the Court of Appeal's decision on waiving offers of alternative accommodation and the lawfulness of an earlier review decision on a subsequent homelessness appplication in Godson v London Borough of Enfield [2019] EWCA Civ 486.
Council Tax 89947548 s 146x219
May 03, 2019

Court rejects implied duty to report change of address for council tax purposes (R v D)

Samuel Genen, solicitor at Steel & Shamash, comments on the case of R v D [2019] EWCA Crim 209 where the Court of Appeal ruled that a failure to notify the local council of a change of address for the purpose of council tax did not constitute a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006). (Registration required)
Evidence in Foreign Courts 71283762 s 146x219
March 22, 2019

Is it in the best interests of a child to give evidence in a foreign trial?

Katherine Duncan explains how the court, in Re X, carried out a balancing exercise in determining whether a child, who was ward of the court, should be permitted to travel out of the jurisdiction to give evidence at a foreign criminal trial.
High Courts inherent jurisdiction for the protection of vulnerable adults 95112860 s 146x219
March 15, 2019

High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for the protection of vulnerable adults

The case of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Meyers [2019] EWHC 399 (Fam) highlights the wide and largely unfettered nature of the power to grant injunctive relief under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for the protection of vulnerable adults and the difficulty surrounding the issue of how the balance should be struck between protection of a person on grounds of vulnerability and respect for their autonomy, writes Bethan Harris.