Introduction
Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they act within the bounds of their authority. At its core, it upholds the rule of law by checking that decisions are lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. A key requirement for initiating judicial review is meeting strict time limits. These deadlines are important because missing them can prevent a claim from being heard, no matter how strong the arguments might be.
The Statutory Framework and General Time Limits
Time limits for judicial review are set out in the Senior Courts Act 1981 and detailed in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Consider these time limits as expiration dates on perishable items—once passed, the opportunity to challenge a decision is gone.
The Three-Month Rule
Under CPR Part 54.5, a claim for judicial review must be filed:
- Promptly, and
- In any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.
This means the clock starts ticking from the moment the decision or action being challenged occurs. Waiting until the last minute isn't advisable. It's like trying to cram a semester's worth of study into one night—you might not achieve the best outcome.
The Promptness Requirement
Filing within three months isn't always enough. The requirement to act promptly can, in some cases, shorten the effective time limit. In R v Independent Television Commission, ex parte TV Northern Ireland Ltd [1996], the court dismissed a claim filed within the three-month period due to lack of promptness. So, it's essential to act swiftly.
Exceptions and Special Time Limits
Certain types of cases have specific, often shorter, time limits. It's like some events having an earlier registration deadline—you need to be aware to avoid missing out.
Planning Law
Challenges related to planning decisions are subject to a six-week time limit under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288. This tight deadline reflects the need for certainty in development projects.
Procurement Law
In public procurement cases, the time frame is even tighter. Regulation 92 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 requires claims to be brought within 30 days from when the claimant knew or ought to have known about the issue.
Human Rights Act Claims
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, section 7(5), claims must be brought within one year of the alleged unlawful act. However, the court may allow a longer period if it considers it equitable to do so.
Judicial Discretion and Extension of Time
Courts have limited discretion to extend these time limits, but this is rarely granted. It's akin to requesting an exception to a non-negotiable deadline—you'll need a compelling reason.
Factors Considered by Courts
When deciding whether to allow a late claim, courts consider:
- Length of Delay: How much time has passed since the deadline.
- Reason for Delay: Whether there were valid reasons, such as unforeseen circumstances.
- Prejudice to Others: The impact on the defendant or third parties.
- Public Interest: Whether the matter affects the wider community.
In R (Hillingdon London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Education [2017], the court emphasized that extensions are exceptional and depend on the circumstances.
Strategic Considerations for Claimants
Given the strict time limits, claimants must plan carefully to keep their legal options open.
Pre-Action Protocol
Following the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review is essential. This involves sending a letter before claim to the public body involved. However, be aware that this step doesn't pause the countdown. It's important to initiate this step promptly to avoid eating into valuable time.
Protective Claims
If time is running short, filing a protective claim can safeguard your position. This means submitting your claim to the court before the deadline, even if all the details aren't finalized. It's like securing a seat at a popular event—you can sort out the specifics later.
Alternative Remedies
Exploring other remedies, such as internal appeals or ombudsman reviews, is important. But pursuing these options doesn't extend the time limit for judicial review. It's a delicate balance between seeking resolution and preserving your right to challenge in court.
Practical Example: Challenging a Planning Decision
Consider a community group wanting to oppose a local council's approval of a new development. The decision was made on March 1st, and they learned about it on March 5th. They have until mid-April—just six weeks—to act.
Steps to take:
- Seek Legal Advice Immediately: Time is of the essence.
- Send a Letter Before Claim: Follow the Pre-Action Protocol without delay.
- Prepare and File the Claim Promptly: Don't wait until the last minute.
Failing to act quickly could result in missing the deadline, closing the door on their chance to challenge the decision.
The Role of Ouster Clauses and Time Limits
Some statutes contain ouster clauses attempting to prevent judicial review of certain decisions. However, courts are cautious with these. In Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969], the House of Lords held that such clauses don't protect decisions made outside the decision-maker's jurisdiction.
Despite this, time limits remain strictly enforced. Challenging an ouster clause doesn't grant extra time. The urgency to act promptly is unchanged.
Impact of Time Limits on Legal Strategy
Understanding these deadlines is key for forming an effective legal strategy.
- Swift Assessment: Lawyers must quickly determine the merits of a case.
- Resource Allocation: Early commitment is required, even when facts are still emerging.
- Concurrent Actions: Pursuing alternative remedies while preparing for judicial review demands careful coordination.
- Risk Management: Missing a deadline can be fatal to a claim, so time management is essential.
Conclusion
The complexities surrounding time limits in judicial review necessitate meticulous attention. Courts enforce these deadlines rigorously to maintain legal certainty and efficient administration. For example, the interplay between statutory deadlines, the need for promptness, and limited judicial discretion creates a stringent framework. Even a valid claim can be dismissed if it's filed out of time, highlighting the critical necessity of acting swiftly. Understanding and adhering to these time constraints directly affect a claim's viability and influence the strategies employed in bringing it forward.
