Do Public Authorities and Government Agencies get things wrong from time to time? Can errors can occur in decision making process? Is the legitimate mark sometimes over-stepped?
The idea of challenging a public body decision is often a daunting prospect.
Whilst many will feel aggrieved by these decisions, how exactly does one go about contesting the decision? What can be done? And what remedies might follow?
Rather than issuing a Court claim (in the standard way), like one person may do to another, there is a different process to determine whether a public body has acted lawfully, or not, in its decision-making.
This process is known as ‘Judicial Review’. Claims for Judicial Review are more akin to an audit of the decision-making process, rather than a traditional Civil claim.
Who can apply for a Judicial Review?
To make such a claim, one has to hold a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter. This has historically given a wide scope to prospective claimants, as it means that you do not necessarily have to have been directly affected by the decision.
It may simply be the case that the decision is of public interest, and in the interest of protecting the public the prospective claimant may have sufficient standing.
For example, an individual or business might seek to challenge the validity of a decision or policy that affects their freedoms, rights or ability to trade. Or, a community organisation or trade association may seek to question decisions which impact a broader scope of affected persons.
A Claim for Judicial Review is an action of “last resort” – and can only be advanced if all other viable options have been exhausted.
So too, any prospective Claimant must act promptly if their claim for Judicial Review is to be permitted, let alone considered by the Courts.
Generally, this means that an application for permission to apply for Judicial Review must be made no later than three months after the grounds for the claim first arose. However, this window may be shorter depending on the exact circumstances.
What are the grounds for a Judicial Review?
Perhaps the most important elements to any Judicial Review are the grounds upon which such a claim may be brought:
- Illegality – the actions of the public body must have been incorrect in law. They may have exercised power wrongly or sought to exercise power that they do not have (ultra vires).
- Irrationality – or Wednesbury unreasonableness. The decision must have been “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”.
- Procedural unfairness – the public body must have not property observed the relevant procedures such as consultation, or if bias has been shown in making a decision.
- There may have been a legitimate expectation for the public body to act within a certain way, based on their own statements or conduct.
Any one or a combination of the above grounds may be advanced by the Claimant.
The Claimant should also bear in mind what the outcome is that they hope to achieve – there are many remedies available to the Court, however if the granting of a remedy to the Claimant would not substantially change the position Claimant, then a remedy is unlikely to be granted.
Dyne Solicitors is regularly consulted in relation to claims for Judicial Review against Public Bodies, such as the Environment Agency; Local Authorities; Regional Police Forces; and DEFRA.
We are specialists in Regulatory Law and Litigation, focusing on the Environmental/Waste, Transport and Land sectors. Contact us for legal advice.