Lee Marsons Published: 27th May 2026 Snapshot: Judicial review — a legal process that holds public bodies to account — is financially out of reach for most ordinary people 97% of legal practitioners surveyed said costs rules are an obstacle to the rule of law and access to justice People earning above just £32,000, the threshold for legal aid, frequently do not pursue or abandon legal claims due to the financial risk of losing PLP is calling on the Government and Parliament to reform costs rules to make judicial review accessible to all, not just those who can afford it Read the report here. New report finds costs rules in judicial review are pricing people out of justice Justice comes with a price tag — and most people cannot afford it. That is the central finding of a new report by Public Law Project (PLP), which sets out evidence that the financial cost of bringing a judicial review is systematically denying access to justice for ordinary people. Judicial review is a legal process where the High Court decides whether the decisions of public bodies, including government ministers, have breached public law or the fundamental rights of individuals. Under current costs rules, the losing party usually must pay the winning party’s legal costs, including solicitors’ fees, barristers’ fees, expert costs, and court fees. PLP’s report found that for many claimants this creates an unacceptable financial risk, making judicial review effectively inaccessible unless they qualify for legal aid or can self-fund a case. Often, people earning above only £32,000 — above the threshold for legal aid — do not pursue or abandon otherwise valid claims because they fear having to pay legal costs if they lose. PLP argues this weakens both access to justice and accountability for unlawful decision-making. An overwhelming 97% of legal practitioners surveyed in this report – 36 practitioners who collectively have acted in dozens of judicial reviews for claimants, defendants and interveners – identified the costs rules as being an obstacle to the rule of law and access to justice. More than three quarters reported seeing claimants who did not pursue an otherwise arguable claim for costs reasons. PLP warns that this has consequences that go beyond individual cases. When unlawful decisions are unchallenged, systemic problems within public bodies may remain uncorrected, affecting many more people. The organisation also argues that barriers to judicial review undermine Parliament’s sovereignty, as public bodies that may not be fulfilling their statutory duties cannot be reliably held to account. The evidence in this report indicates that costs rules produce significant obstacles to the rule of law and access to justice at all stages of judicial review proceedings. Contrary to the practice elsewhere in civil litigation, claimants cannot recover their legal costs at the pre-action stage, even if a public body concedes that they have acted unlawfully and grants the relief requested by the claimant. This means that claimants may still face significant legal bills for highlighting a public body’s unlawful conduct. When a claimant seeks permission to pursue a claim, claimants are exposed to potentially substantial costs because protective measures known as Costs Capping Orders (CCOs) are generally only available after permission has been granted by the court. If permission is refused, claimants are liable for the defendant’s legal costs. The report also found inconsistent use of CCOs by courts and noted they are currently limited to a narrow category of “public interest proceedings”. Finally, after a case proceeds to a full hearing and the High Court has reached a judgment, claimants without a CCO face uncapped legal costs that parties can recover from the losing side. This means that claimants, even with strong claims, may have to exhaust their life savings if they lose a claim at trial. Moreover, even successful claimants often do not recover more than 75% of their legal costs from defendants, while legal costs of public bodies have increased significantly over the last decade. To address these concerns, PLP recommends several reforms: The “Judge Over Your Shoulder” (JOYS) guidance produced by the Government Legal Department (GLD) should be amended to advise public bodies to pay claimants’ pre-action costs where they concede unlawfulness early. Claimants should be allowed to apply for CCOs when they lodge their claim, rather than only after permission is granted. CCOs should be available for all judicial reviews and not just public interest proceedings. Introducing “Qualified One Way Costs Shifting” (QOCS) in judicial review proceedings, so claimants may only be ordered to pay defendant’s costs where it is reasonable considering the claimant’s financial resources and conduct. The report’s author, PLP Senior Research Fellow, Lee Marsons: “Judicial review matters to everyone. It advances the public interest in being governed according to law. The Government – including the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General – have consistently highlighted the importance of the rule of law to the UK’s social, economic and political success. If they truly wish to put their words into action, the Government should implement the proposals outlined in this report to put the UK on the path towards inclusion rather than exclusion, and towards promoting the rule of law rather than undermining it.” Read the report here.