Although it may seem that the updating of judicial review, now enshrined in part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), has come rather late in the day in relation to civil procedure reforms, the date of implementation -- 2 October 2000 -- is no coincidence.It is the same date as the commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).Applications to challenge the actions of public authorities will continue to be by way of judicial review with the extra consideration now being given to compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The new provisions contain tight time limits which are not capable of being extended by agreement between the parties.

Judicial review fees have also been restructured by the Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 2000 SI 2000/2382.Judicial review is used to challenge the lawfulness of an enactment or a decision, action or omission by a public authority (rule 54.1(2)(a)) and therefore is fertile ground for 'vertical' challenges under the HRA.

The claimant would normally be seeking either a declaration or an injunction (rule 54.3(1)).

A claim for damages may be included, but this is not mandatory (rule 54.3(2)).The administrative CourtJudicial review claims are dealt with by a newly named Administrative Court (54PD2.1) instead of the previously named Crown Office List or 'Divisional Court', but the address remains the same -- the Royal Courts of Justice (54PD2.2), except for the Welsh, who have their own administrative court in Cardiff (54PD2.3).

Although the claim must be issued in London or Cardiff, the court may direct the hearing to take place at some other venue (54PD8.3).Farewell to the LatinA change of name for the type of orders sought reflects the dropping of Latin expressions and reliance instead on plain English -- 'mandamus' becomes 'a mandatory order'; 'prohibition' becomes 'a prohibiting order'; and 'certiorari' becomes 'a quashing order' (rule 54.1(2)).Judicial review claimsPermission to proceed is required (rule 54.4) and the claim form must be filed within three months after the date that the grounds arose (rule 54.5(1)) or such shorter period as may be p rovided for by any enactment (rule 54.5(3)).

This time limit is not extendable by agreement between the parties (rule 54.5(2)).The claim form must contain the same information as is required for other part 8 claims as well as details of any interested parties and the request to proceed under rule 54.4 above (rule 54.6(1)).

For contents of the claim form, see 54PD5.6-5.8.

The court does not involve itself in service at all.

The form must be served by the claimant on the named parties within seven days of issue (rule 54.7).Any party to the proceedings must file an acknowledgement of service not more than 21 days after service of the claim form and serve a copy on the claimant and any other named party within seven days of filing it (rule 54.8(2)).

These time limits may not be extended by agreement (rule 54.8(3)).

If a claim is made under the HRA the court may direct that notice be given to the Crown or that the Crown be joined as a party (54PD8.2).In the acknowledgement of service the person filing it must set out a summary of his grounds for contesting the claim and details of any other party to be added to the proceedings (rule 54.8(4)).

Failure by a party to file an acknowledgement of service bars him from involvement in the 'permission' process (rule 54.9(1)(a)) but not necessarily from the review itself provided he complies with directions of the court as to the filing of a response (rule (54.9(1)(b)), as to which, see below.Convention pointsLord Woolf has twice warned against overuse of the Act -- first when sitting as Master of the Rolls in Daniels v Walker (The Times, 17 May 2000, CA) and then at a press conference after being sworn in as Lord Chief Justice.Nevertheless, there will be cases where a human rights challenge is both necessary and appropriate and where solicitors could face a negligence claim for failing make one: hearings in public, court fees and fast -- track timetables are just three topics which could come under human rights scrutiny.

It is a difficult area calling for the exercise of sound professional judgment.

For further comment consult Human Rights and the Woolf Reforms (see [2000] Gazette; 8 June; 51).PermissionThe request for permission will usually be considered without a hearing (54PD8.4).

Any decision, together with reasons (rule 54.12), will be served on the claimant, defendant and any other party who filed an acknowledgement of service (rule 54.11).

There is no appeal against the decision but a party may request a hearing at which the decision may be reconsidered (rule 54.12(3)) provided a request is made within seven days of service of the reasons (rule 54.12(4).

Only two days' notice of the hearing date will be given (rule 54.12(5)).At such a hearing, if the defendant or any other interested party attends, the court will not generally make an order for costs against the claimant (54PD8.6).

In any event, neither the defendant nor any other person served with the claim may apply to set aside the order giving permission (rule 54.13).Responding to the claimAny person served with the claim who wishes to contest it must serve a response containing detailed grounds plus any written evidence with 35 days of service of the order giving permission (rule 54.14(1)).EvidenceNo written evidence may be relied upon unless it has been served in accordance with directions or any order of the court, or the court gives permission (rule 54.16).

Disclosure is not required unless the court orders otherwise (54PD12.1).The hearingThe court can hear a request from any person (not being a part y) that they be allowed to file evidence or be heard at the judicial review hearing (rule 54.17).

This would particularly apply to special interest groups, such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, who may have an interest in the proceedings.

This is in stark contrast to claims under the European Convention on Human Rights where the only participants can be the 'victim' and the alleged wrongdoer.The court may dispose of the matter without a hearing if all the parties are in agreement (rule 54.18).

As for an agreed final order see 54PD17.In the event of a quashing order, the court may either consider the whole matter there and then or remit it to the decision-maker with a direction to reach a decision in accordance with the judgment of the court (rule 54.19(2)).Pleading pointsPeople setting out a claim when seeking to rely on the HRA should see 16PD16, whether the intention is to proceed by way of judicial review or under part 7 or non-judicial review part 8.

The same information must also be included when a human rights point is being taken for the first time in an appeal notice.Otherwise, the procedure is as usual but remember that a claim for damages in respect of a judicial act can only be commenced in the High Court.These provisions do not apply when reliance on the HRA and the Convention is on a 'horizontal' basis, that is to say, where the court, as a public authority, pursuant to s.6 of the HRA applies the principles of the Convention in disputes between individuals.

In that event there is no need for either party to plead for any particular human rights remedy.