# Judicial review remedies

> **Key takeaway:** Remedies discretionary: quash/prohibit/mandatory/declare/injunct (SCA s.31). Highly-likely test may bar relief (s.31(2A)). Damages only with private-law/HRA basis. Re-decision common after quashing. Pair with grounds + permission notes.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Public Law
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/PublicLaw/judicial-review-remedies
- **Keywords:** judicial review remedies, quashing order, mandatory order, section 31, highly likely test, discretionary relief, CPR 54, declaration

## What is this about?

Even where a public-law ground is made out, judicial review remedies are discretionary. The Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 54 provide quashing, prohibiting, and mandatory orders, declarations, and injunctions, with damages only in limited circumstances.

## What is the core rule?

Successful claimants may obtain a quashing order (setting aside the decision), a prohibiting order (restraining an unlawful act), a mandatory order (compelling performance of a public duty), declarations, and injunctions (SCA 1981 s.31; CPR 54). The court may refuse relief if it would be detrimental to good administration or on other discretionary grounds, including delay and the claimant's conduct. Section 31(2A)–(2C) requires the court to refuse relief if it appears highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different (subject to exceptions for reasons of exceptional public interest). Damages require a private-law or HRA foundation pleaded properly.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Which remedy matches the unlawfulness?
2. Any s.31(2A) 'highly likely' outcome argument?
3. Delay, alternative remedy, or conduct bars?
4. Severance/partial quashing possible?
5. HRA damages or private-law claim needed for compensation?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31** — Remedial powers and the highly-likely test constraints on granting relief.
- **Civil Procedure Rules, Part 54** — JR procedure including remedies.
- **R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2008] UKHL 22 (remedy discretion themes) / modern s.31 case law** — Illustrates remedial discretion — apply current authorities on s.31(2A).
- **Human Rights Act 1998, s.8** — Damages for Convention breaches where necessary to afford just satisfaction.

## How does this apply in practice?

Pair with permission-stage and grounds notes. Always plead the precise order sought. Quashing often leads to re-decision rather than the court substituting merits.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Assuming success on grounds guarantees quashing
- Ignoring s.31(2A) highly-likely arguments
- Seeking damages in pure JR without legal basis
- Failing to address delay when seeking discretion

## When would a practitioner use this?

Drafting statements of facts/grounds and skeleton arguments on relief; defendant resistance strategies.

## Quick reference

Remedies discretionary: quash/prohibit/mandatory/declare/injunct (SCA s.31). Highly-likely test may bar relief (s.31(2A)). Damages only with private-law/HRA basis. Re-decision common after quashing. Pair with grounds + permission notes.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*