How to Answer a Judicial Review Problem Question (LAWDM0059)

To answer a judicial review problem question well, work client by client: decide whether each can bring a claim, pick the two or three grounds that fit the facts, and give a reasoned view of the prospects. Do not write a general essay on judicial review. If you want structured support while drafting, our law assignment help in the UK covers public law problem questions of this kind.

What the brief is really asking

The LAWDM0059 Public Law Coursework 2 brief sets a fictitious statute that creates a water infrastructure regulator with power to issue binding directions. Three decisions follow: a contract award revoked without reasons after apparent government pressure, a 40% operating cut on safety grounds at a plant that supplies the Ministry of Defence, and a contract won by a company in which the regulator’s chief executive has a family shareholding.

You advise two companies in Part A and a pressure group in Part B. For each, the brief wants three things: whether a claim can be brought, which grounds are plausible, and how likely they are to succeed. The word limit is tight, so every paragraph must do one of those jobs.

How the marks and words split

The marks usually follow the issues, not the facts. A sensible split for a 2,000-word answer looks like this. Check your own brief for the exact limit and any rules on footnotes.

Step-by-step plan for a judicial review problem question

1. Underline the powers in the statute. Note what the regulator may do and for which purposes, because illegality arguments start there.
2. For each client, write one line on standing. Direct targets of a decision rarely have a problem; a campaign group does.
3. List possible grounds, then cut the list. Keep the two or three that the facts actually support.
4. For each ground, state the rule with its leading case, apply it to the facts, and say what evidence you would need.
5. Consider remedy. A quashing order may not give the client what it wants, and damages are not automatic in judicial review.
6. Check time limits and delay. Claims must be brought promptly and within three months.
7. Finish with a prospects line for each client, such as good, moderate or weak, and a reason.

Keep the plan visible while you write, and tick off each client as you finish it.

What markers reward

• Standing handled properly: sufficient interest in the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(3), with the key cases on pressure groups, National Federation of Self-Employed and World Development Movement, applied to a newly formed group.
• The right ground for each fact: improper purpose and fettering for the contract revocation, proportionality for the operating cut, apparent bias for the conflict of interest.
• The correct test stated and applied. For apparent bias that is the fair-minded and informed observer test from Porter v Magill.
• Honest weaknesses. A good answer says why the claimant might lose.
• Context awareness: courts defer on technical safety and national security, but they still ask for evidence.
• Accurate OSCOLA citation of cases and legislation, and a table of cases and legislation at the end.

Want to see how other public law problems are structured? Browse our law answer samples for worked layouts.

Common mistakes

• Listing every ground in the textbook instead of the grounds that fit.
• Treating all three clients as if they have the same standing.
• Saying the Wednesbury test applies to everything. Where a company’s interests are seriously affected, the better argument is structured proportionality, and you should explain why.
• Assuming lack of knowledge defeats apparent bias. The test is objective, so it is a factor, not an answer.
• Forgetting remedy and discretion, so the advice ends at “the decision is unlawful”.
• Inventing facts. If the brief does not say whether a promise was conditional, say that the point is unknown and explain how it changes the outcome.

Student pain points

“I have too many grounds and not enough words.” Rank them by how well the facts fit, and give the weaker ones a sentence each.

“The statute is fictional, so what can I cite?” Cite the sections given in the brief for the powers, and real cases for the principles. Do not invent case law.

“Do I need the pressure group to win on standing before discussing bias?” Deal with standing first, but add that the merits are relevant to whether interest is sufficient, then continue to bias in the alternative.

“Is it all right to say a client will probably lose?” Yes. Markers reward a reasoned prediction more than optimism.

“How do I show OSCOLA without footnotes in the text?” Follow your handbook. Many students cite the case name and neutral citation at first mention, and keep a full table of cases and legislation at the end.

Worked mini-example of one ground

Take the apparent bias issue in Part B. A strong paragraph has four moves. First, state the rule: would a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, see a real possibility of bias? Second, identify the facts that matter, namely the family shareholding in the winning bidder and the position of the chief executive. Third, apply the rule by weighing both sides: the financial link points one way, her reported lack of knowledge points the other, and the observer is assumed to know both. Fourth, give a conclusion that is tied to evidence, such as whether she took part in the decision and whether the regulator had a conflicts procedure.

Notice that the paragraph never says “the decision is biased”. It says what the claimant must prove, what is missing and what the likely result is. That balance is what separates a merit-band answer from a narrative one.

Handling the national security and safety context

When a decision touches safety or defence, students often swing to one of two extremes: either the court must accept whatever the regulator says, or it can substitute its own view. Neither is right. The leading authority on national security accepts that the courts take care, but also that the government must put forward evidence if it relies on security. For technical safety, a court is likely to respect expert judgment while still testing whether the regulator considered less drastic options and followed a fair process.

In your answer, say clearly which issues the court will probably leave to the regulator and which it will examine. This shows the difference between the merits of a decision, which are not reviewed, and its lawfulness, which is.

Using remedies to sharpen your advice

Many marks are lost by stopping at “the decision is unlawful”. Clients want to know what they get. A quashing order sends the matter back to the decision-maker, who may reach the same result lawfully. Declarations may give clarity but not money. Damages need a separate private-law basis. Relief is also discretionary, so delay, the position of innocent third parties and the practical effect of an order all matter. Add two or three sentences on this for each client and your advice will read as real advice, not an exam list.

See a worked example

Once you have your own plan, compare it with our LAWDM0059 judicial review sample answer. It is for reference only and is not to be submitted as your own work. If your course also covers constitutional foundations, the parliamentary sovereignty public law essay and the DL404 public law assignment brief are useful companions.

FAQs

Do I need to explain the three grounds of review at length?

No. State them in a sentence in your framework and spend the words on application. Markers know the headings and want to see them used.

What is the time limit for a judicial review claim?

The claim must be filed promptly and in any event within three months of when the grounds arose, under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court can also refuse relief for undue delay under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Can a pressure group always bring a claim?

No. It must show sufficient interest. Courts have accepted campaign bodies where the issue is serious, no one else is better placed, and the body has a real role in the field. A brand-new group has a harder case.

When does the Wednesbury standard matter?

Wednesbury asks whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It remains the default for irrationality, but you can argue for proportionality where a claimant’s interests are seriously affected and explain why that is stricter.

Does the decision-maker have to know about a conflict for bias to be arguable?

Not necessarily. Apparent bias asks what a fair-minded and informed observer would think, so actual knowledge is relevant but does not end the inquiry.

Will a successful claim get the client its contract back?

Usually not. The normal remedy is a quashing order and a fresh decision, and money is recoverable only where the claim includes damages that a private-law action would support.

If you would like expert help planning or checking your answer, submit your assignment details and we will advise on the next step.