Brabners Partner Jeff Lewis assumes Deputy Vice President role at the Law Society
He'll be one of only four presidents from Manchester in the organisation’s history, having been elected to the position by the Law Society Council in May.
New judicial review guidance explained — AI use & urgent applications
AuthorsGlyn Lancefield
4 min read
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being used in judicial review proceedings, while the Administrative Court is also seeing a substantial increase in claims and applications seeking urgent consideration.
Both issues are now firmly in focus. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has recently published a Position Statement on how judges use AI, followed by the Law Society issuing a 58-page AI Practice Note to solicitors. The Administrative Court has also now published its Judicial Review Guide 2026 (the 2026 Guide), which includes, for the first time, a specific section on the use of AI tools in judicial review proceedings.
Alongside the 2026 Guide, the Administrative Court has also released a Practice Statement addressing the growing number of applications seeking urgent consideration.
Here, Glyn Lancefield from our litigation team breaks down what the new guidance means for AI use and urgent applications in judicial review proceedings.
Using AI in judicial review proceedings
The 2026 Guide replaces the 2025 edition and is expected to be followed by all court users, including litigants in person.
Paragraph 2.3 warns court users of the risk of AI chatbots being prone to error. It requires reasonable care to be taken when using AI tools, particularly when citing legal authorities and stating legal principles or factual matters.
Sub-paragraph 2.3.2 sets out the extremely serious possible consequences for non-compliance, including:
- cost sanctions
- strike out
- referral to a regulator
- contempt of court proceedings
- referral to the police.
Keeping submissions relevant & concise
Sub-paragraph 2.3.3 of the 2026 Guide reminds court users to comply with page limits for documents:
- 40 pages for Statements of Facts and Grounds.
- 5 pages for a reply.
- 30 pages for Summary Grounds of Support or Resistance.
- 40 pages for Detailed Grounds of Support or Resistance.
- 25 pages for skeleton arguments.
Court users are also reminded to not include irrelevant materials in their documents.
The preface to the 2026 Guide highlights the Administrative Court’s experience of over-long written arguments and document bundles and emphasises the importance of concision in statements of case and skeleton arguments.
When is an urgent application justified?
The other issue addressed by the 2026 Guide is the increasing number of applications claiming unnecessary urgency.
The preface stresses the importance of considering carefully whether urgency is genuinely required. It refers to R (DVP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 606 (Admin), [2021] 4 WLR 75, where the Administrative Court decided that an urgent application was a significant abuse of its procedures and should never have been made.
The Administrative Court’s recently published Practice Statement specifically addresses applications seeking urgent consideration. It states that while at least one judge is available each working day to deal with these applications, the substantial increase in urgent claims and applications is placing pressure on its limited administrative and judicial resources.
It reminds court users to comply with Chapter 17 of the 2026 Guide, which sets out the requirements when making urgent claims or applications.
Form N463 takes on greater importance
One particularly important change concerns the information provided on Form N463.
The Administrative Court will now decide whether or not urgency is justified solely on the basis of the information provided on Form N463, without referring to other documents that are attached or cross-referenced.
The Practice Statement makes the position clear:
“If the information contained on Form N463 does not justify urgency, urgent consideration will be refused”.
The 2026 Guide and the Administrative Court’s Practice Statement are therefore essential reading for all parties to judicial review proceedings and their representatives.
Talk to us
If you’re bringing, facing or contemplating seeking to intervene in judicial review proceedings, our award-winning litigation team can provide clear, practical advice at every stage.
Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form.
Talk to us
Loading form...
Related insights
TCC ruling highlights reach of extended Building Safety Act limitation periods
We explore the Taylor Wimpey judgment and break down the difficult issues arising from extended limitation periods under the Building Safety Act 2022.
Andy Burnham signals reform of non-compete clauses — what could change?
We explain the reforms that could be on the horizon and what employers should be doing now to prepare.
Landmark CAS ruling on pregnancy discrimination — 5 lessons for women’s football
Learn more about the background to the case, why the ruling matters for maternity protections in women’s football and the key lessons for football clubs.
Wagatha Christie lawyer: “City fans may find themselves cheering Everton”
Everton is fighting a compensation ruling that could have implications for potential claims against City, according to Coleen Rooney's lawyer, Paul Lunt.
A new era for legal claims in English football — Manchester City's rule breaches explained
We explore whether titles could be stripped, the appeals process, what other clubs need to know and importantly, what could happen next.
Pulp the fiction? Piers Morgan v Earl Charles Spencer explained
Our litigation team considers some of the libel law in play around Morgan's pursuit of legal action against the Earl and his book publisher.
Outing & threats to disclose sexual orientation — your legal protections explained
We outline the legal protections that may be available if you face a threat to expose personal information such as your sexual orientation.
Drelle v Servis-Terminal — a new insolvency recovery tool for banks, lenders & trade creditors
The Supreme Court's decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal may provide a powerful new recovery option, with insolvency pressure able to be deployed immediately.
Football sanctions explained — why Chelsea's punishment has sparked debate
Amid debate over the Chelsea, Everton and Forest cases, Paul Lunt joined Total Sport to explain how football disciplinary decisions are reached and why sanctions can vary.
Franchise agreements — key considerations for franchisors & franchisees
We outline some of the key commercial and legal considerations for parties considering a franchise arrangement.
Brabners adds six to partnership in record year for partner promotions
We've announced our largest-ever round of Partner promotions, with six lawyers joining the partnership following another year of sustained growth.
Why ‘meaning’ matters — lessons from recent defamation & malicious falsehood cases
We explore how the Courts determined meaning in these decisions and what they signal for future reputation management claims.
Katy Perry v Katie Perry — what a longstanding trade mark battle teaches businesses about brand protection
We explore how the dispute unfolded, why the courts reached different conclusions and the practical lessons that it offers for businesses.
Mediation & other forms of ADR — practical guidance for resolving disputes outside of court
We discuss what mediation and other forms of ADR are, their benefits, when they’re most effective and how courts view parties who refuse to engage in them.
How retailers can protect their business from false or misleading claims — key legal & practical considerations
We outline the steps that retailers can take to contain an emerging online issue and the legal remedies available for responding to false statements.
International arbitration — the scope of supervisory jurisdiction & anti-suit injunctions following Star Hydro
We outline the Court of Appeal’s decision, consider how the Supreme Court is likely to approach the appeal and highlight five key takeaways.
How the CJC’s litigation funding reforms aim to restore certainty after PACCAR
We examine the CJC’s recommendations and their implications for funders, claimants and practitioners navigating this evolving area.
3 potential ways generative AI could lead to defamation claims
We explain where generative AI has the potential to damage individuals’ reputations and examine relevant case law from other jurisdictions.
Brabners secures favourable policy construction judgment for Acasta
Our award-winning litigation team has secured a High Court judgment in favour of Acasta European Insurance Company Limited.
London expansion & record revenues drive next phase of growth at Brabners
We’re delighted to announce the opening of a new office in London, marking a major milestone at the end of a year defined by strong financial performance.
PR under fire — what happens when clients sue?
We explore the types of claims that PR firms can face when an initial complaint escalates and outline some practical steps to manage the risks.
Navigating partnership conflict in law firms — 10 top tips to prevent disputes
We share ten top tips for preventing partnership disputes and guidance on recognising the warning signs and responding effectively if conflict does arise.
HyNot judicial review decision highlights the importance of acting promptly
We explore how the Court considered the requirement of promptness, the arguments made and what this means for claimants considering judicial review.
Lights, camera, litigation — The Lost King case
We explore the legal and reputational implications of dramatising ‘real life’ events for the screen.