Judicial review - Time limits for bringing a claim

Learning Outcomes

This article outlines the time limits and procedural requirements for bringing a judicial review claim in England and Wales, including:

• The structure and rationale of the general time limits under CPR r.54.5, combining the three-month outer limit with the requirement of promptness.
• How the courts distinguish between filing within the maximum period and failing the separate promptness requirement, with typical exam-style scenarios.
• Identification and comparison of the special statutory time limits for planning, procurement and Human Rights Act claims, with key statutory references candidates should remember.
• The extent of the court’s powers to extend time, what amounts to “good reason” or “exceptional circumstances”, and the strict approach taken in practice.
• The practical consequences of delay for permission, choice of remedy and the claimant’s overall prospects of success, even where the underlying grounds appear strong.
• The interaction between time limits, the Pre-Action Protocol and the use of protective claims, including when and how to issue a claim to preserve limitation.
• Strategic and ethical considerations in advising clients on urgent public law challenges, such as protecting good administration, third-party interests and the integrity of the judicial review process.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the time limits governing judicial review claims and their interaction with statutory regimes and procedural rules, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The nature and application of the general time limits for judicial review claims, including the three-month maximum and the requirement for promptness.
• The specific statutory time limits for certain specialised claims (e.g., planning, procurement, and human rights).
• The relationship between statutory, regulatory, and case-law derived time limits and the operation of Civil Procedure Rules r. 54.5.
• The court’s discretion in extending time limits for bringing a judicial review claim, including what constitutes 'good reason' and 'exceptional circumstances'.
• The principle that delay (even if within the maximum period) may result in the refusal of permission or remedy, due to a lack of promptness or public interest considerations.
• The effects of delay on the right to substantive and procedural remedies, including refusals on grounds of substantial hardship or prejudice to rights of third parties.
• The effect of following the Pre-Action Protocol on Judicial Review and its interaction with time limits, including the use of protective claims.
• The need to balance internal appeals or statutory alternative remedies with the operation of judicial review time limits.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What is the maximum time limit for filing a judicial review claim under the Civil Procedure Rules, and what additional requirement must also be satisfied?
2. How do the time limits for judicial review differ in planning and public procurement cases?
3. Can the court extend the time limit for bringing a judicial review claim? If so, in what circumstances?
4. Does following the pre-action protocol for judicial review pause or extend the time limit for filing a claim?

Introduction

Judicial review is the primary legal mechanism enabling courts to supervise the legality of actions and decisions taken by public bodies. These applications are inherently time-sensitive. The law imposes stringent time limits to ensure certainty, efficient public administration, and the orderly enforcement of rights and obligations. Breaching these limits typically bars the claim, regardless of its merits, ensuring public bodies and affected third parties are not exposed to indefinite legal uncertainty.

Key Term: judicial review
The process by which the courts supervise the actions and decisions of public bodies, ensuring that those bodies act within their lawful powers and observe correct procedures.

The strictness with which time limits are enforced is shaped by both procedural rules and the fundamental public interest in legal certainty and the finality of administrative decisions. Consequently, prospective claimants and practitioners must act decisively, aware that even an in-time claim may be refused if perceived to be delayed without adequate justification.

General Time Limits for Judicial Review

The time limits for judicial review claims in England and Wales are principally governed by the Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 31(6), and CPR 54.5. These provisions seek to prevent stale claims, facilitate good administration, and ensure that public decision-making is not needlessly impeded.

Key Term: promptness
Promptness is the requirement that a claimant must bring a judicial review claim without undue delay, even if the maximum permitted period has not yet elapsed.

The Three-Month Rule and Promptness

Under CPR Part 54.5(1):

• A claim form must be filed promptly; and
• In any event, not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.

The three-month period is the outer limit, not a safe harbour. The overriding principle is still promptness: the court may refuse permission where there has been undue delay, regardless of whether the claim is filed within the three-month window.

The 'grounds to make the claim' refers to the date when the claimant became aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the relevant act or decision. However, the time limit is not extended simply because the decision comes to light only after the date it was made. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that they brought the claim as soon as reasonably possible in the circumstances.

Key Term: grounds for the claim first arose
The date when the applicant first became aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the decision, action, or failure to act being challenged.

The promptness requirement is enforced firmly by the courts. In Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067, the Court of Appeal confirmed that delay in bringing a judicial review claim, even if within three months, could be fatal if the court found that the challenge was not pursued with sufficient urgency in the circumstances. Delay will particularly be assessed having regard to the interests of third parties and the purpose of the decision.

An undue delay may also be inferred where the claimant pursues alternative remedies, such as internal appeals, without reserving their right to judicial review or making clear that they are also seeking external legal redress. It should be noted that the time limit is not automatically suspended or extended by the pursuit of an alternative appeal route; the clock will continue to run.

Key Point:
The three-month period is a maximum, not a target; claims may be rejected as 'not prompt' even if filed during this period.

Worked Example 1.1

A local authority makes a decision on 1 February. The claimant learns of the decision on 5 February. The claim form is filed on 30 April. Is the claim in time?

Answer:
The claim is within three months of the decision, but the critical test is whether it was filed promptly. If there was no good reason for waiting until late April—such as seeking advice, awaiting an internal process, or requesting further information—the court may decline permission for lack of promptness. The onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the necessity for any delay.

Special Statutory Time Limits

There are categories of judicial review claims for which Parliament or secondary legislation prescribes time limits shorter than the general rule—usually reflecting the need for speed and finality in certain administrative contexts. For these cases, the CPR recognises the shorter statutory period and excludes the general three-month period (CPR r. 54.5(3)).

Key Term: statutory time limit
A period for commencing proceedings that is fixed expressly by statute or subordinate legislation, and which prevails over the general provisions of the CPR in the event of inconsistency.

Planning Cases

For challenges to certain planning decisions, including the grant of planning permission and related environmental consents, the time limit to bring a claim is generally six weeks from the date of the relevant decision (see Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s. 288; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and Town and Country Planning (England) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). The clock starts running from the date of the decision itself, irrespective of when the claimant learns of it, unless there are grounds for arguing that the decision was deliberately concealed. Extensions are extremely rare and will only be granted in the most compelling circumstances.

• For specific statutory review of planning consents under the Planning Acts, the court is not permitted by statute to extend time due to 'good reason'.
• The short period reflects the importance of legal certainty for public and private investment and market reliance on planning decisions.

Procurement Cases

Challenges to decisions regarding public contracts under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102) must be brought within 30 days from the date the claimant knew or ought to have known of the alleged infringement. This period may be extended by the court, but only up to a maximum of three months and only if there is a 'good reason' for doing so. The strict approach is designed to protect commercial certainty in public procurement.

• Claims under the procurement regime typically relate to the award, modification, or withdrawal of a public contract subject to regulated procurement.
• The time limit is not extended by negotiations or clarification exchanges between the claimant and the awarding authority.

Human Rights Act Claims

For claims under the Human Rights Act 1998, s. 7(5), proceedings must be brought within one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place, unless the court considers it equitable to allow a longer period. This longer period is allowed only if fairness absolutely requires, for example where the claimant could not reasonably have known about the infringement.

• Claims engaging human rights may, in appropriate situations, be brought by way of judicial review or as freestanding actions, but the shorter period applies to judicial review procedure.
• The complexity and fact-specific nature of human rights breaches mean that claimants must be alert to limitation issues.

Key Point:
For all categories with a special statutory time limit, the court’s power to extend time is much narrower—often nonexistent—compared to ordinary judicial review proceedings.

Extensions and Judicial Discretion

The court has only a very limited power to extend the time for bringing a judicial review claim. According to CPR r. 3.1(2)(a) and r. 54.5(1), extensions may only be granted for 'good reason'—and modern authority interprets this narrowly, in favour of strict adherence to time limits.

Key Term: undue delay
Excessive or unjustified passage of time in commencing legal proceedings, in circumstances requiring promptness, even where the formal procedural period has not yet expired.

Courts weigh several factors when exercising discretion:

• The reasons and length of the delay: Even a brief delay may cause permission to be refused if there is no compelling justification.
• Whether the claimant acted reasonably: The court will expect a claimant to act quickly and to explain any lapse. A belief that an internal appeal or negotiation would succeed is not, without more, sufficient justification for delay.
• The impact of delay on third parties: Greater harm, disruption, or prejudice to other persons, including those who have acted on the basis of the public decision, will weigh against an extension.
• The public interest: The need for certainty and finality, especially in high-stakes environments like planning, procurement, and financial regulation.
• The prospects of the claim: In exceptional cases, an overwhelmingly strong claim, and grave injustice resulting from non-extension, may persuade the court to exercise discretion—though this is rare in practice and usually associated with a serious breach of fundamental rights.

It is important to note that a claim that breaches the time limit can be dismissed at both the permission stage (when the court first screens the claim) and, exceptionally, at the substantive hearing (if facts establishing delay only emerge then).

If a claim is filed after the expiry of the applicable time limit, the default position is that the court cannot grant permission, and will do so only where exceptional circumstances justify doing so.

Worked Example 1.2

A claimant discovers a planning decision was made on 1 March but does not file a claim until 1 June, arguing they were gathering evidence. Is an extension likely?

Answer:
No. The six-week statutory time limit for planning challenges is interpreted strictly. The court will almost never grant an extension, and the fact that the claimant needed more time to collect evidence would rarely constitute a 'good reason'. The purpose of the short time limit is to achieve certainty over the outcome of planning and investment decisions.

The same reasoning applies in procurement cases and other categories with specific time limits. In practice, legal representatives must act with urgency and, if necessary, take steps to preserve the claim by filing before the evidence is complete.

The Pre-Action Protocol and Protective Claims

The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review encourages early disclosure, communication, and potential resolution of claims without litigation. It directs claimants to send a letter before claim to the defendant public body, setting out the factual and legal issues, and requesting a reply within a specified period (usually 14 days or less in urgent cases).

However, following the Protocol does not stop or extend the limitation period. Time continues to run while the Protocol is followed. Therefore, the need to comply with the Protocol must not result in the claim being filed late.

• The benefit of the Protocol is that it offers a chance for clarification and settlement before costs are incurred, but it is not a defence to or justification for delay.
• If time is particularly short (for example, because of a pending statutory deadline), claimants should consider filing a claim to protect their position and simultaneously sending a letter before claim and engaging with the Protocol process.

Key Term: protective claim
A claim form issued primarily to stop the limitation period from expiring, before all details or grounds have been fully prepared.

Protective claims are accepted practice and can be issued with minimal detail on the facts or legal grounds, on the understanding that particulars may be supplemented after the claim is issued, in accordance with court directions.

• Claimants must still act with good faith and seek to provide full particulars expeditiously.
• Protective claims must state sufficient information for the court to understand the legal and factual basis for urgency.

Failing to file a claim because the claimant is waiting for a response to a pre-action letter, to complete evidence, or to exhaust an internal appeal may lead to the claim being deemed out of time.

Effect of Delay on Remedies

Even if a judicial review claim is not refused outright due to delay, the court may decline to grant a remedy—such as a quashing order, a prohibiting order, or a declaration—if to do so would cause substantial hardship to, or prejudice to the rights of, any person, or would be detrimental to good administration.

Section 31(6) Senior Courts Act 1981 expressly gives the court power to refuse a remedy if:

• The claimant has delayed in bringing the claim; and
• Granting relief would likely result in substantial hardship to or prejudice to the rights of any person, or
• It would be detrimental to good administration.

The public interest in certainty and finality in the application of public decision-making is of overriding importance. For example, in planning cases the risk of prejudice to developers or local residents who have acted in reliance on the decision carries great weight. The court will be especially reluctant to disturb a decision where it would affect numerous subsequent actions, cause hardship to innocent third parties, or undermine public confidence in reliable outcomes.

Delay may not only result in the refusal of primary remedies but could also result in the award of a less extensive remedy, or a declaration instead of an order.

Exam Warning:
Delay—even if within procedural time limits—can defeat a strong claim. Promptness must be assessed on the facts, and claimants need to act at the earliest opportunity.

Strategic Considerations

Given the procedural and substantive risks associated with delay, claimants and their legal advisers should:

• Proactively and efficiently investigate potential grounds for judicial review immediately upon learning of the relevant acts.
• Avoid waiting until the end of a limitation period. Assess and, where appropriate, pursue quick resolution through internal appeals or alternative remedies, but not at the expense of time limits.
• Advise clients that pursuing alternative remedies does not extend the time limit, unless expressly provided by statute or the court.
• Where an internal appeal is necessary or legally required, pursue a protective claim in parallel or seek court directions.
• Maintain clear records demonstrating prompt action and the rationale for any delay, including correspondence, chronology of events, and contemporaneous notes.
• File a protective claim in close cases to preserve legal rights, updating particulars as more information becomes available.

Worked Example 1.3

A claimant is considering an internal appeal against a public body’s decision. The appeal process will take two months, but the judicial review time limit will expire in six weeks. What should the claimant do?

Answer:
The claimant should file a protective judicial review claim before the time limit expires, even though the internal appeal remains outstanding. This ensures preservation of the right to challenge the decision by judicial review should the appeal be unsuccessful. The internal appeal does not automatically stop the time limit for judicial review; failure to act in time may bar the claim.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The general time limit for judicial review is three months from when the grounds first arose, but the requirement of promptness means even an in-time claim can be refused if not pursued quickly.
• Special statutory time limits—planning (six weeks), procurement (30 days), and human rights (one year)—may override the general time period and must be strictly observed.
• The court may refuse permission or a remedy due to delay, and can do so even in the face of a meritorious claim where prejudice to good administration or third parties would result.
• Extensions of time for judicial review are rare and require a compelling, fact-specific justification; routine extension is expressly discouraged by CPR and case law.
• Complying with the Pre-Action Protocol does not interrupt the running of time; protective claims are often necessary to preserve rights where time is tight.
• Delay can defeat a claim entirely or limit the remedies available; practitioners must be vigilant and clients must be advised to make decisions with utmost speed.

Key Terms and Concepts

• judicial review
• promptness
• grounds for the claim first arose
• statutory time limit
• undue delay
• protective claim