When should a defendant respond to a judicial-review letter before claim?

The Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol normally expects a response within 14 days. The letter should propose a reply date, and Annex A says a shorter or longer time may suit the case. If a substantive response cannot be given in time, paragraph 21 calls for an interim reply with reasons and a proposed reasonable extension.

Responsible actor. The proposed defendant responding to a judicial-review letter before claim.

Identify the actual decision, act or omission and the proposed claimant’s letter.

Read its proposed reply date, requested information and any asserted urgency.

Check that the letter reaches the proper proposed defendant and responsible department. This guide does not reproduce department contact addresses that may change.

This guide concerns the pre-action letter exchange in England and Wales. It does not calculate the judicial-review claim-filing limit, an acknowledgment after issue or a deadline in another tribunal.

1. Read the letter’s proposed reply date and the actual urgency.
2. Prepare a substantive response using Annex B.
3. If more time is needed, send an interim reply with reasons and a proposed response date.
4. Track the separate claim-filing and interim-relief questions without assuming a pause.

Read the proposed reply date in the actual letter and the circumstances supporting it. Paragraph 20 supplies the normal 14-day expectation; Annex A expressly allows a shorter or longer appropriate period. It does not convert the expectation into 14 working days or establish automatic court-office rollover for correspondence.

The court-office closure provision in CPR 2.8(5) does not by itself extend a pre-action correspondence date. Read the actual proposed reply date and any reasoned extension. Judicial-review claim-filing limits remain separate and cannot be extended by agreement under CPR 54.5(2).

The protocol’s normal expectation is not one fixed compulsory period for every case. The actual reply proposal, urgency and reasoned extension require review. A court-office rollover cannot automatically postpone this correspondence. No universal response date is calculated.

Urgent cases

Paragraph 6 says the protocol is not appropriate in very urgent cases and describes immediate proceedings and interim-relief considerations. A 14-day expectation is not permission to wait in an emergency.

Reasoned interim response

Paragraph 21 asks the defendant to propose a reasonable extension and identify when a substantive response is expected. The proposal does not bind a claimant who considers it unreasonable.

No automatic extension of the claim clock

Paragraphs 1 and 21 preserve the separate filing limit. Current CPR 54.5 includes the ordinary promptness and three-month framework, plus different planning, procurement and other branches. Parties cannot extend those rule limits by agreement.

Response contents

Paragraphs 22–23 distinguish a full concession from a partial concession or contested claim. Address the issues, requested documentation and reasons for withholding material as applicable.

Court consequences

Paragraph 20 says the court may take an unjustified failure to respond into account and impose sanctions. Paragraph 21 also warns about premature proceedings. Neither outcome is an automatic calendar determination.

No automatic stay

Paragraph 6 states that the letter and claim do not stop implementation of the disputed decision. Any agreed standstill or interim court order requires separate evidence.

• This guide concerns the pre-action letter exchange in England and Wales. It does not calculate the judicial-review claim-filing limit, an acknowledgment after issue or a deadline in another tribunal.
• The protocol’s normal expectation is not one fixed compulsory period for every case. The actual reply proposal, urgency and reasoned extension require review. A court-office rollover cannot automatically postpone this correspondence. No universal response date is calculated.

• Preserve the full letter, delivery information and proposed reply date.
• Identify the decision, grounds, requested documents and interested parties.
• Assess urgency and whether the ordinary protocol is appropriate.
• Prepare the response using Annex B and address the proposed claim.
• Send an interim reply with reasons and a realistic proposed date when necessary.
• Enclose the protocol where paragraph 20 requires it for a litigant in person.
• Preserve response delivery and any agreement without treating it as a claim-clock extension.
• Send the response using the address and route identified in the letter and preserve delivery evidence. Annex B supplies the response format. This is correspondence to the proposed claimant, not court filing. Any claim, urgent application or court-ordered act has its own filing and service requirements.