AC-2024-LON-003241 - [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)

CPR 54.5(1) provides that “the claim form must be filed (a) promptly; and (b) in any event not later than three months after the ground to make the claim first arose.”

Section 31(6) Senior Courts Act 1981 provides:

“Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant (a) leave for the making of the application ... if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship, or substantially prejudice the rights of any person or would be detrimental to good administration.”

The Court can extend the three-month time limit. Paragraph 6.4.4.2 of The Administrative Court Guide 2025 states:

“In considering whether to grant an extension of time, the Court must first determine the date from which the relevant time period started to run so that the period of delay can be calculated correctly. The Court will then consider all the circumstances, including whether an adequate explanation has been given for the delay, the importance of the issues, the prospects of success and whether an extension will cause substantial hardship or prejudice to the defendant or any other party or be detrimental to good administration.”

The Guide refers to Maharaj v National Energy Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] 1 WLR 983, [38] in which Lord Lloyd-Jones stated:

“Here it is important to emphasise that the statutory test is not one of good reason for delay but the broader test of good reason for extending time. This will be likely to bring in many considerations beyond those relevant to an objectively good reason for the delay, including the importance of the issues, the prospect of success, the presence or absence of prejudice or detriment to good administration, and the public interest.”

At [47], he continued:

“While prejudice or detriment will normally be important considerations in deciding whether to extend time, there will undoubtedly be circumstances in which leave may properly be refused despite their absence. One example might be where a long delay was wholly lacking in excuse and the claim was a very poor and inconsequential one on the merits, such that there was no good reason to grant an extension”.

In Fishermen and Friends of the Sea v Environmental Management Authority [2018] UKPC 24, [22] the Board noted that “the purpose of that specific limit is to provide a degree of certainty to those affected, and accordingly … strong reasons are needed to justify extending it where other interests, public or private, are involved”.

Delay in obtaining legal aid is not normally a sufficient factor to persuade a court to grant an extension of time (R (Kigen) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 1286, [18]) although “it may still be a factor which can be taken into account”.