Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for Judicial Review

The Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for Judicial Review is a Ministry of Justice protocol requiring potential claimants to write to public bodies BEFORE issuing JR proceedings, giving the body opportunity to reconsider. PAP must be observed for most immigration JRs.

For [CLIENT_NAME] challenging [DECISION_TYPE] dated [DECISION_DATE]:

§1 — PAP FRAMEWORK (100-120 words)

PAP for JR (Ministry of Justice — 2013):
  ▪ Applies to most public law challenges including immigration
  ▪ Claimant writes "letter before claim" to public body
  ▪ Public body has 14 days to respond
  ▪ Claimant must wait for response (or 14 days to elapse) before issuing JR
  ▪ Costs sanction: if claimant proceeds without PAP, Court may refuse / reduce costs

Purpose:
  ▪ Cost-saving — many disputes resolve at PAP stage
  ▪ Issue clarification before formal JR
  ▪ Public body opportunity to revisit decision

For immigration JR: PAP letter is the first formal step.

§2 — PAP LETTER STRUCTURE (250-300 words)

"PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

To: Secretary of State for the Home Department (or specific division)
[Public Law Team / Litigation Division / specific contact]

Re: [CLIENT_NAME] — [DECISION_TYPE] dated [DECISION_DATE]

Pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review, we put the Secretary of State on notice of the proposed judicial review of the decision dated [DECISION_DATE].

A. DETAILS OF PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANT
Name: [CLIENT_NAME]
Date of Birth: [DOB]
Nationality: [Indian]
Home Office Reference: [HOR]
Address: [UK residence or family member's address]
Email + Phone: [contacts]
Legal Representative: [Firm name, OISC/IAA registration, contact]

B. DETAILS OF DECISION UNDER CHALLENGE
[DECISION_TYPE] dated [DECISION_DATE]
Made by: [Decision-maker title]
Communicated by: [letter / email]

C. SUMMARY OF FACTS
[2-3 paragraphs of relevant facts:]
  ▪ Original application made on [date]
  ▪ Documents submitted as itemised at Annex [letter]
  ▪ Refusal dated [DECISION_DATE] on grounds [summary]

D. GROUNDS OF CLAIM

Ground 1 — [State legal error]
The decision is challenged on the ground that the Secretary of State has:
  [State specific legal error from ALLEGED_LEGAL_ERROR]
  ▪ Failure to consider evidence at Annex [letter]
  ▪ Failure to apply [Immigration Rule / case law]
  ▪ [Specific error]

Ground 2 — [Additional ground]
Furthermore, the decision is unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense because:
  [State error]

Ground 3 — [Procedural unfairness if applicable]

Each ground constitutes an error of law for the purposes of judicial review.

E. RELIEF SOUGHT
The claimant seeks:
  (a) An order quashing the decision dated [DECISION_DATE];
  (b) An order requiring the Secretary of State to make a fresh decision in accordance with the law;
  (c) Damages (if applicable);
  (d) Costs;
  (e) Such other relief as the Court may deem just.

F. INFORMATION REQUESTED
We request the following information to be provided within 14 days:
  ▪ Confirmation that the decision will be withdrawn and a fresh decision made
  ▪ Confirmation of which evidence was considered
  ▪ Confirmation of which Immigration Rule was applied

G. RESPONSE DEADLINE
The Secretary of State has 14 days from receipt to respond. Failure to respond by [DATE = +14 days] will result in formal Judicial Review proceedings being issued.

H. COSTS WARNING
If proceedings are issued without satisfactory PAP response, we will draw the Court's attention to this letter in any costs application.

[Signature, Solicitor/Counsel, Date]"

§3 — LIKELY HOME OFFICE RESPONSES (100-120 words)

Possible PAP responses:
  ▪ CONCEDE — Home Office withdraws decision, makes fresh decision; case resolves
  ▪ PARTIAL CONCEDE — Home Office offers limited remedy; claimant accepts or proceeds
  ▪ REFUSE — Home Office maintains decision; proceeds to JR
  ▪ NO RESPONSE — proceeds to JR

Approximately 30-40% of immigration PAP letters result in concession. Strong PAP letters increase concession rate.

Home Office "concede" lever:
  ▪ Clear legal error easily identified
  ▪ Strong evidence not previously considered
  ▪ High-profile case (media attention, public interest)
  ▪ Pattern of similar cases conceded

§4 — POST-PAP JR APPLICATION (100-120 words)

If Home Office refuses or doesn't respond:

JR application via Civil Procedure Rules Part 54:
  ▪ Issue Claim Form (N461) within 3 months of decision (CPR 54.5)
  ▪ Pay JR fee: GBP 154 [VERIFY]
  ▪ Serve on Home Office + Treasury Solicitor
  ▪ Home Office responds (Acknowledgement of Service + Detailed Grounds)
  ▪ Court considers permission on paper
  ▪ If permission granted: full hearing in 6-12 months
  ▪ Senior Court / Upper Tribunal (Civil) jurisdiction

§5 — TIMING NOTES (60-80 words)

JR time limit: 3 months from decision (CPR 54.5).

PAP should be done EARLY:
  ▪ Send PAP within 4-6 weeks of decision
  ▪ Wait 14 days for response
  ▪ Issue JR within 3-month limit if PAP unsuccessful

DO NOT wait until day 89 of 90-day limit — leaves no buffer for PAP response.

§6 — CASE LAW + JR PRINCIPLES (60-80 words)

Common JR principles:
  ▪ Wednesbury unreasonableness (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374)
  ▪ Procedural unfairness (Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40)
  ▪ Proportionality (R (Daly) v SSHD [2001] UKHL 26)
  ▪ Legitimate expectation (R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213)
  ▪ Hardiyal Singh principles (immigration detention)

§7 — CAUTION + STRATEGY (60-80 words)

JR is high-stakes:
  ▪ Costs at trial: GBP 5,000-30,000+ for legal fees + court costs
  ▪ Cost-shifting in JR: each side bears own costs typically (but special orders possible)
  ▪ Permission stage filters out weak cases
  ▪ Strategy: try PAP-first; escalate to JR only if clear legal error AND PAP unsuccessful

End with: "DRAFT — for OISC/IAA-registered adviser or immigration solicitor only. PAP letters are legally significant; errors at this stage can affect costs orders + admissibility at JR. Engage solicitor + counsel before sending. Home Office concession rate higher when PAP is clearly drafted + cites specific evidence + case law."