AC-2024-LDS-000019 - [2025] EWHC 2940 (Admin)

It is necessary for me to decide, afresh, whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review.

Permission should only be granted if the judge is satisfied that there is an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success.

Even if a claim is arguable, the judge must refuse permission if it appears to be highly likely that the outcome for the Claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. The latter requirement derives from the Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31 which provides in material part that:

“(3C) When considering whether to grant leave to make an application for judicial review, the High Court—

(a)

may of its own motion consider whether the outcome for the applicant would have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, and

(b)

must consider that question if the defendant asks it to do so.

(3D) If, on considering that question, it appears to the High Court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different, the court must refuse to grant leave.

(3E) The court may disregard the requirement in subsection (3D) if it considers that it is appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public interest”.

Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. If there is another route by which the decision can be challenged, which provides an adequate remedy for the Claimant, that alternative remedy should generally be used before applying for judicial review. If the court finds that the Claimant has (or had) an adequate alternative remedy, it will generally refuse permission to apply for judicial review.