It was Lord Goff who described the 'solicitor...[who] frankly admitted that he knew nothing about judicial review' (Caswell [1990] 2 AC 738, 744C).

Are you in the same boat?Judicial review operates to control public bodies by quashing (certiorari), restraining (prohibition/injunction), clarifying (declaration) or compelling (mandamus) their action.Can you recognise a potential judicial review with confidence?-- NOTE OF CAUTION 1: delay.

Judicial review must be commenced promptly and may be dismissed even if brought within the three-month period referred to in RSC ord 53, r 4(1) (see eg TVNI [1991] The Times, 30 December).-- NOTE OF CAUTION 2: wasted costs orders.

the practitioner who launches a judicial review without a sufficient grasp of the basic legal principles of this (complex) jurisdiction risks personnal responsibility for costs (see Wenman [1994] COD 141).Here are three steps to help identify a viable judicial review:STEP 1: PUBLIC MATTERAsk - Are the intended respondent and the claim sufficiently 'public' in character?NOTE OF CAUTION 3: exclusivity (O'Reilly [1983] 2 AC 237).

If a public body's act/decision is amenable to judicial review, the courts may refused to allow it to be challenged in other (eg writ) proceedings.(a) Public bodyTo be judicially reviewable, the intended respondent must be a sufficiently 'public' body.There is 'no universal test' as to what is required (Noble [1990] ICR 808, 814F), but there are notable indicators:Ask - Does the body wield statutory powers (Leech [1988] AC 533, 561G)?Ask - Do its functions involve a sufficient public element (Datafin [1987] QB 815, 838E)?Examples of bodies which have been judicially reviewed:-- central and local government;-- courts (eg Crown Courts; magistrates; coroners; county courts);-- tribunals (eg mental health review tribunal; patents appeal tribunal; immigration appeal tribunal);-- Legal Aid Board;-- disciplinary bodies (eg GMC; Law Society); and-- commercial regulators (eg Lautro; Fimbra).The courts tend to decline to review sporting bodies (Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909) and religious bodies (Wachmann [1992] 1 WLR 1036; Ali [1994] COD 142).(b) Public law claimRemember - it is not enough that the intended respondent is a public body.Judicial review may be declined if the nature of the claim is seen as 'private'.

This is part of the 'procedural minefield' (Roy [1992] 1 AC 624, 653G): even law lords have been known to disagree about on which side of the public/private divide a claim falls (see Gillick [1986] AC 112, 178C-D cf 192A-B).Matters which have been characterised as 'private' claims, inappropriate for judicial review, include:-- employment contexts (Noble; McClaren [1990] ICR 824);-- claims for non-discretionary remedies (Brealey [1994] COD 145).STEP 2: GROUNGD FOR REVIEWAsk - Is there a ground upon which the court may be persuaded to intervene?-- NOTE OF CAUTION 4: the 'forbidden appellate approach' (Brind [1991] 1 AC 696, 767G).

On judicial review, the court will not (usually) substitute its judgment for that of the relevant decision-making body.A common starting point is Lord Diplock's threefold classification (illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety): GCHQ [1985] AC 374, 410D-411B.Established grounds for judicial review can be represented as follows:(a) Illegality-- Ultra viresAsk - Has the public body acted inconsistently with a legal source to which it is subordinate (including EC law: EOC [1994] 2 WLR 409)?-- Jurisdictional flawAsk - Has there been an error going to 'jurisdiction' (including the absence of a precedent fact: Khawaja [1984] AC 74)?-- Error of lawAsk - Is the decision flawed for (material) error of law (not available against courts: Page [1993] AC 682, 693B) or (in the case of courts) error of law on the face of the record (Shaw [1952] 1 KB 338)?-- Misdirection in lawAsk - Has the body misdirected itself in law (Nilish Shah [1983] 2 AC 309, 350D)?(b) Abuse of power-- IrrationalityAsk - Does the exercise of power constitute 'unreasonableness' (Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223), or 'perversity' (Acas [1981] AC 424, 444C)?-- Relevancy/irrelevancyAsk - Has the body taken an irrelevant, or failed to take a relevant, matter into consideration (Wednesbury)?-- Bad faithAsk - Can it be said that power has been wielded in bad faith (Times Supplements (1991) 3 Admin LR 241, 253A)?-- Improper motiveAsk - Can the public body be said to have acted for an improper motive or purpose (Preston [1985] AC 835, 864H)?-- frustrating the legislative purposeAsk - Has the body breached its 'duty not to act so as to frustrate the policy and objects of the Act' (Padfield [1968] AC 997, 1032G-1033A)?-- Unfairness as abuse of powerAsk - has the public body been guilty of 'unfairness amounting to an abuse of power' (Preston, 853A)?-- Improper delegationAsk - has there been an unlawful or improper delegation of power from one public body to another (Vine [1957] AC 488)?-- Fettering the discretionAsk - Has the body adopted an inflexible policy/rule, so that it is no longer 'keeping an open mind' (Brent [1982] QB 593, 643G)?-- Special groundsAsk - Is there some special issue which the reviewing court should address (as a matter of first impression), such as 'deliberate abuse of extradition procedures' (Bennett [1994] AC 42)?(c) Procedural impropriety-- Procedural ultra viresAsk - Is the decision flawed for contravention of 'procedural rules that are expressly laid down' (GCHQ, 411A-B)?-- BiasAsk - Has there been an infringement of the rule against apparent bias (ie the 'real danger' test: Gough [1993] AC 646)?-- No fair hearingAsk - Has the public body breached its common law duties to hear representations (and disclose information) (eg Doody [1993] 3 WLR 154)?-- Material irregularityAsk - Is this a situation where the court might intervene for 'material irregularity...or, if one prefers the transatlantic terminology, a want of due process' (Neill [1992] 1 WLR 1220, 1230D-E)?STEP 3: OTHER HURDLESAsk - Is there any other reason why a judicial review may fail to get off the ground?-- NOTE OF CAUTION 5: non-disclosure.

Obvious hurdles should be disclosed on applying for leave for judicial review (see eg Huntingdon [1992] 3 All ER 566, 576f-g (DC) and Wenman).Common additional hurdles in judicial review:-- DelayAsk - Has there been undue delay (s.31(6) of the SCA; TVNI)?-- Ouster clauseAsk - Is there a statutory provision precluding (or restricting) judicial review (Huntington [1994] 1 All ER 694 (CA))?-- Alternative remedyAsk - Is there an (unused) alternative means of challenging the decision (eg a statutory appeal mechanism) (Leech, 580C)?-- No letter before actionAsk - Does the applicant need to write a 'letter before application', prior to launching any judicial review (Wenman)?-- Legal incapacityAsk - Does the applicant lack legal capacity (eg an unincorporated association: Darlington Taxi [1994] The Independent, 13 January)?-- Lack of standingAsk - Does the applicant lack a 'sufficient interest' in the subject matter (s.31(3) of the SCA; National Federation [1982] AC 617, 630C)?-- Hypothetical matterAsk - Is the question raised a hypothetical or academic one (Wynne [1993] 1 WLR 115)?-- Disputed factsAsk - Will the litigation involve factual disputes, which may make judicial review inappropriate (Brealey)?