The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 – Key updates

CE-file

Electronic CE-filing is now codified in the ACO Guide. While the use of the CE-filing system remains optional for most applications, it is now required for Immediate applications and extradition appeals. Some applications still need to be filed by email, and regional urgent applications using Form N463 must not be submitted via CE-file.

Filing and serving the claim form

New guidance is provided to clarify that the claim form should be filed separately from the other documents which are being lodged but should be included in the accompanying bundle of documents to aid administrative efficiency.

Timely service of the claim form and accompanying documents on the defendant and any interested parties within 7 days of the claim being issued remains critical and the ACO Guide now emphasises, by reference to the recent ruling in R (Randall) v Clergy Discipline Commission [2024] EWHC 2924 (Admin), that the consequence of the failure to serve a valid claim form on the defendants in time and a failure to obtain an extension of time to effect valid service is that the claim form has to be set aside and the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The acknowledgement of service and jurisdictional challenges

By reference to the recent ruling in R. (Amalgamated Smart Metering Ltd) v Rotherham MBC [2025] EWHC 97 (Admin), the ACO Guide now expressly clarifies (in line with longstanding guidance in the White Book and the ruling in R. (Girgis) v JCIE [2021] EWHC 2256 (Admin)) that if the defendant wishes to challenge the court's jurisdiction to entertain a JR claim or argue that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction, the preferable (and safest) course of action is for the defendant to raise that in the acknowledgment of service and to invite the court to refuse permission to apply for judicial review for that reason.

However, it is worth noting that the ruling in Amalgamated Smart Metering Ltd goes on to explain that:

1. There is nothing in CPR 54 which excludes the operation of CPR 11 in the context of a JR

2. While jurisdictional points which are routinely argued at permission stage (e.g. delay or the existence of an adequate alternative remedy) should usually be raised when filing the AoS, an application under CPR 11 would remain appropriate, for example, to challenge whether the English Courts are the correct forum for determining a particular JR challenge

3. Where it is appropriate to make a CPR 11 application in the context of a JR claim, the defendant (a) does not need to file a separate AoS form and (b) may wish to use the JR AoS and summary grounds to indicate its intention to make that application

Corporate witness statements

New guidance on corporate witness statements based on the recent ruling in HM Attorney General v BBC [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB) notes that defendants in JRs should consider carefully whether it is appropriate for factual evidence to be given in the form of a corporate witness statement and that if evidence is to be given in that way, in line with CPR 32 PD 18.2 the witness statement must clearly identify (1) which of the statements in it are made from the witness’s own knowledge and which are matters of information or belief and (2) the source for any matters of information or belief. This requirement is not satisfied merely by saying that the source is a government department or agency.

The duty of candour

In a clear departure from established practice and earlier versions of the ACO guidance, which proceeded on the understanding that a public authority's duty of candour in JR proceedings applied to all stages, including pre-action correspondence, in National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking and Trust) Ltd (in Administration) v Chief Minister of Anguilla [2025] UKPC 14 the Privy Council ruled that the duty of candour is a duty that is owed to the court only when JR proceedings have been commenced (although it is good practice to demonstrate candour from the pre-action stage). 

While the Privy Council ruling is not binding on English courts, the ACO guidance has been amended to reflect the position in National Bank of Anguilla. In line with that ruling, the ACO Guidance goes on to note that:

1. What the Court requires at the permission stage is sufficient information to be able to decide the application on an accurate basis and the court can take into account a lack of candour in deciding whether to grant permission

2. At the substantive stage, the duty requires a defendant in the detailed grounds of defence or evidence to identify any relevant facts and the reasoning underlying the measure in respect of which permission to apply for judicial review has been granted

The use of AI

The case of Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) is a landmark warning on the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings. Lawyers have a non-delegable duty to verify the authorities that they rely on. The deliberate inclusion of fake citations or the use of generative AI without verification can result in legal practitioners facing serious consequences. This case involved serious professional misconduct and although it did not result in immediate criminal liability or disbarment, it did open the door to disciplinary proceedings by regulators.

In light of the above, the ACO Guide now includes for the first time an express reference to the use of AI tools, highlighting the importance of checking the authenticity of authorities referred to in skeleton arguments and explaining the consequences of relying on false citations by not checking AI generated content. The Guide notes that the range of potential sanctions may include public admonition, adverse costs orders, striking out, referral to a regulator, contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police.

Skeleton arguments

In Eduard Otto Goldstein v The Court of Caltanissetta Italy [2024] EWHC 1459 (Admin), Fordham J digressed from his judgment in order to emphasise that if an issue is being pursued, and there is direction for a skeleton argument, it is not appropriate simply to say that it will be addressed orally. The ACO Guide is clear that skeleton arguments must plainly indicate the points upon which submissions will be made. An application for extended time should be made promptly and with good reason if parties anticipate that they will be unable to comply with the direction for filing the skeleton argument. In the absence of specific directions, a skeleton argument must be filed and serve at least two days before the hearing is listed.