← Back to blog

Judicial Review for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Constitutional and Administrative Law guide → View the full SQE1 Constitutional and Administrative Law guide

22 Apr 2026

Judicial review is the process by which the High Court supervises the legality of decisions made by public bodies. Understanding the three grounds (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety), standing, time limits and available remedies is essential for SQE1.

Judicial Review for SQE1

Constitutional & Administrative Law > Judicial Review

Judicial review is the process by which the High Court supervises the legality of decisions made by public bodies. It is one of the most heavily tested topics in SQE1 Constitutional & Administrative Law. Understanding the three grounds for review, standing requirements, time limits, the permission stage, and the remedies available is essential.

What is Judicial Review in SQE1?

Candidates often confuse judicial review with an appeal on the merits — a critical mistake that loses marks on SQE1. Judicial review is a public law remedy that allows individuals to challenge decisions, actions or omissions of public bodies. It is not an appeal — courts do not reconsider the merits of a decision. Instead, they examine whether the decision-maker acted lawfully, followed proper procedures, and did not act irrationally.

The test for whether a body is "public" for judicial review purposes has expanded beyond traditional government departments to include bodies with public functions (such as utilities exercising statutory powers, regulatory bodies, and charities receiving substantial public funding).

Key Principles for SQE1

  • The three grounds for judicial review: (from Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]):

  • 1. Illegality: the decision-maker lacked legal power to make the decision, or exercised a power for an improper purpose. This includes ultra vires acts (acting beyond powers) and acting for purposes other than those authorised by statute. If a decision-maker has no legal power to make a decision, it is automatically unlawful.

  • 2. Irrationality: (Wednesbury unreasonableness) — the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it. This is a high bar. The test is not whether the court disagrees with the decision, but whether it was irrational. Courts will not overturn decisions simply because they are harsh or unpopular.

  • 3. Procedural impropriety: the decision-maker failed to follow proper procedures. This includes breach of natural justice (right to a fair hearing, absence of bias), failure to consult when required, failure to give reasons, and breach of statutory procedural requirements.

  • Standing: the claimant must have a "sufficient interest" in the matter (Supreme Court Act 1981, s.31). This is flexibly interpreted and includes groups representing interests, ratepayers challenging use of council funds, and individuals affected by the decision. Organizations like environmental groups may have standing to challenge decisions affecting their interests.

  • Time limits: claims must be brought "promptly and in any event not later than 3 months" from the date the grounds of review became known (Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(6)). This is strictly enforced, though the court has discretion to extend in certain circumstances.

  • The permission stage: claimants must first obtain permission (formerly called "leave") to proceed. At this stage, the court filters out unmeritorious or abusive claims. The claimant must show an arguable case that the decision is unlawful. Most claims fail at the permission stage.

  • Remedies:

  • Quashing order (formerly certiorari) — quashes the decision and returns the matter to the decision-maker to reconsider

  • Mandatory order (formerly mandamus) — orders a public body to perform a duty or decision they have wrongfully refused to do

  • Prohibiting order (formerly prohibition) — prevents a public body from continuing an unlawful act or decision

  • Declaration — a statement of the parties' legal rights; does not compel action but clarifies the law

  • Damages — awarded in limited circumstances, only if the claimant can show a private law cause of action (such as breach of contract or tort)

  • Proportionality: in challenges involving human rights (particularly under the Human Rights Act 1998), courts apply a proportionality test (more rigorous than Wednesbury unreasonableness) asking whether the interference with rights is proportionate to the legitimate aim. Understanding how human rights principles interact with judicial review grounds is crucial, as is recognizing that legitimate expectation challenges often arise in the context of procedural impropriety.

Exam tip

The biggest SQE1 trap is confusing the three grounds and selecting the wrong one. Ask yourself: Is this a case where the decision-maker had no power? (illegality). Is it a case where the decision is so unreasonable no reasonable body would make it? (irrationality — rarely succeeds). Or is it a case where proper procedures were not followed? (procedural impropriety). Most successful challenges are based on illegality or procedural impropriety, not irrationality. This is what examiners test.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions typically present a scenario where a public body has made a decision and someone seeks judicial review. This is one of the most commonly tested areas in SQE1. The question tests whether you correctly identify the decision as reviewable, identify the correct ground(s) for challenge, and determine the appropriate remedy.

Example scenario: A council's licensing officer refuses a business permit without giving the applicant a hearing or explaining reasons. The applicant had not been warned that the permit was at risk. Grounds for challenge: procedural impropriety (breach of natural justice — no fair hearing; no reasons). The remedies might be a quashing order (to quash the decision and require reconsideration) or a mandatory order (to require the officer to grant the permit if it meets statutory criteria).

This is a classic SQE1 trap: candidates correctly identify that the decision is unfair but then fail to link this to the correct ground of review (procedural impropriety) or select the wrong remedy. Practice identifying which ground applies, then selecting the remedy that addresses the problem.

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Confusing the three grounds and selecting the wrong one — illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety are distinct
  • Applying Wednesbury unreasonableness in human rights cases instead of proportionality — different tests apply
  • Assuming damages are always available in judicial review — they are not; a private law cause of action must exist
  • Forgetting the 3-month time limit — claims brought outside this period are usually barred unless the court extends
  • Misunderstanding standing — it is interpreted flexibly; groups, ratepayers and those representing interests may have standing
  • Missing that some decisions are "non-justiciable" — judicial review does not apply to all public body decisions; foreign policy and certain executive decisions are non-justiciable
  • Assuming a decision is irrational simply because it is harsh or unpopular — the Wednesbury test requires the decision to be so unreasonable no reasonable body would make it
  • Forgetting natural justice requirements (fair hearing, absence of bias) — these are frequent grounds for procedural impropriety challenges

Quick Summary

  • Judicial review examines whether decisions by public bodies are lawful
  • The three grounds are illegality (lack of power or improper purpose), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety (breach of fair procedures)
  • Standing requires a sufficient interest in the matter; this is interpreted flexibly
  • Claims must be brought promptly and within 3 months of grounds becoming known
  • Permission stage filters out unmeritorious claims
  • Remedies include quashing orders, mandatory orders, prohibiting orders, declarations, and damages
  • Proportionality (not Wednesbury) applies to human rights challenges
  • Natural justice requires a fair hearing and absence of bias

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A government minister makes a decision to close a publicly funded research laboratory. The minister's decision letter states that the closure is necessary because the laboratory's research 'no longer aligns with the government's policy priorities.' Several researchers employed at the laboratory seek judicial review of the decision. The minister acted under a statutory power that provides: 'The Minister may close any government research facility where the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to do so.' The researchers argue that the minister's decision was irrational because the laboratory has produced internationally recognised research. The minister's solicitor argues that the statutory wording gives the minister a broad discretion, and the court should not substitute its own view for that of the minister. The researchers' solicitor has also identified that the minister did not consult the laboratory's advisory board before making the decision, even though the board's terms of reference state that it should be consulted on 'matters affecting the future of the laboratory.' One of the researchers has received a job offer from a private sector employer but has not yet accepted it. The laboratory employs 45 staff.

Which of the following best describes the nature and scope of judicial review as it applies to the minister's decision?

Question 2

Scenario

A government minister announces a new policy that permits the construction of fracking wells within 500 metres of residential properties. The policy is published in the form of a written ministerial statement and replaces an earlier policy that required a minimum distance of two kilometres. An environmental charity whose stated objectives include protecting communities from environmental harm wishes to challenge the new policy by way of judicial review. The charity has no members who live within 500 metres of a proposed fracking site. The charity has campaigned against fracking for over a decade and has been consulted by the government on previous fracking policies. The government argues that the charity does not have standing to bring the claim because it is not directly affected by the policy. A resident who lives 300 metres from a proposed site has separately indicated that he does not wish to bring a claim himself. The charity has instructed a solicitor who specialises in public law. The policy was announced without prior consultation with affected communities or environmental groups. An independent scientific report commissioned by the government concluded that fracking within 500 metres of residential properties poses a low risk to health. The charity previously brought a successful judicial review challenge against a different government planning policy in 2018. The charity is funded by public donations and does not receive any government funding.

Does the environmental charity have standing to bring the judicial review claim?

Question 3

Scenario

A government agency is required by statute to consult with affected stakeholders before making regulations governing the disposal of hazardous waste. The statute provides that the agency 'shall consult such persons as appear to it to be representative of the interests likely to be substantially affected by the proposed regulations'. The agency publishes draft regulations and consults with three industry bodies, two environmental charities, and one local government association. A trade union representing waste disposal workers is not consulted, despite the fact that the proposed regulations will significantly affect working conditions for its members. The trade union writes to the agency before the consultation period closes, requesting to be included, but receives no response. The final regulations are made without consulting the trade union. The trade union applies for judicial review of the regulations on the ground of procedural impropriety. The agency argues that it exercised its discretion reasonably in selecting consultees and was not obliged to consult every interested party. The regulations impose new requirements for personal protective equipment that will cost employers an estimated £15 million. The trade union has 50,000 members working in the hazardous waste industry. The agency's internal minutes record that a senior official recommended consulting the trade union but was overruled by the agency's chief executive. The consultation lasted for eight weeks, which is the standard period for government consultations.

Is the trade union likely to succeed in its judicial review claim on the ground of procedural impropriety?

Practice with full exam-style questions

Try DemoView Pricing

Related Topics

Practise Judicial Review Questions for SQE1

Want to solidify your knowledge? ActusPrep provides realistic SQE1 questions tailored to this topic.

👉 Try our free demo: https://actusprep.com/demo 👉 View plans and pricing: https://actusprep.com/pricing