Judicial reviews
Judicial review is how the High Court checks that a public body has acted lawfully — that it had the power to make a decision, followed a fair process, and reached a decision a reasonable body could reach. It does not decide who is right on the merits, and it has strict time limits: a claim must usually be brought promptly and in any event within three months.
We bring or support judicial reviews only where a decision has caused serious harm and the point at stake matters beyond one family.
HIGH COURT, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT · JUDGMENT 8 DECEMBER 2023
R (W) v Hertfordshire County Council [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin)
What happened
A parent asked Hertfordshire County Council to assess their child's special educational needs at the end of December 2022. The Council refused. The family appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and the Council then conceded and agreed to assess. The law required the Council to issue the final EHC plan within 20 weeks of the original request — by mid-May 2023. It did not. With Justify's support, the family brought a claim for judicial review.
What the court decided
The deadlines are binding. The judge, David Lock KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, accepted that demand for assessments had risen sharply and that there is a national shortage of educational psychologists — but held that the regulations impose "hard edged legal duties", not duties to use best endeavours.
The Council acted unlawfully in failing to finalise the plan within the statutory period, and the court granted a declaration saying so.
The Tribunal is no answer to delay. The Council accepted that a failure to complete an agreed assessment on time cannot be appealed to the Tribunal, so judicial review was the right route.
Something had "gone seriously awry". The court noted the Council's own figures: in 2021/22 it had conceded 79 of 91 appeals against its refusals to assess.
What changed
The Council agreed to commission an independent review of how it decides requests for assessment. The review, by barrister Leon Glenister, was published in July 2024 and made 17 recommendations, including training on the case law, moderation of decisions, and tracking appeal outcomes. The judgment has since been relied on in other cases, including R (JSC) v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 68 (Admin).
Read more
The court did not rule on the wider claim that the Council was deliberately refusing assessments, and the independent review that followed found no deliberate policy of doing so — but it found enough wrong to make 17 recommendations.
Independent Reviews
Justify made the case for and secured two independent reviews led by lawyers. One examined the conduct of an academy school and the other examined Hertfordshire County Council’s process for assessing education, health and care needs.
Policy Makers
Justify submitted evidence to the House of Commons Education Committee’s inquiry into SEND. The committee cited that evidence in its report. Justify also provides evidence to politicians, including MPs, when it uncovers malpractice.