Legal Articles

Judicial review of the Care Quality Commission decisions

Home / Knowledge base / Judicial review of the Care Quality Commission decisions

Posted by Ana Lelliott on 24 April 2018

Blank person
Ana Lelliott Solicitor

Can I judicially review a decision of the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’)?

The CQC is a public body and is therefore subject to judicial review if;

  • The decision or act is public in nature;
  • You have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the decision, act or omission;
  • You can satisfy one of the grounds for challenging the decision, act or omission;
  • You have exhausted internal procedures and/or alternative remedies; and
  • You are within the applicable time limits

Do I have a ‘sufficient interest’ to bring a claim?

In order to bring a claim for judicial review you need to show that you have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the subject matter of the decision you are seeking to challenge. As a service provider and proprietor of a Care Home which is the subject of a decision made by the CQC, such as a rating following an inspection, you would have sufficient interest to bring a claim.

What are the grounds for judicial review?

The grounds for reviewing a decision or act of a public body are:

  • Illegality – the CQC has acted outside the law governing the action in question
  • Procedural unfairness – the CQC has not followed the proper procedures
  • Irrationality – the decision was unreasonable (so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it)
  • Material considerations – the CQC did not take into account relevant information or took into account irrelevant information when making its decision
  • Legitimate expectations – the CQC has departed from previous assurances it has given that it would act in a certain way
  • Mistake of fact – a CQC inspector may have incorrectly recorded facts during an inspection
  • Proportionality – in claims involving human rights or European Law it may be necessary to decide whether an act or decision was proportionate to a legitimate aim.
  • Reasons - there is no general obligation on a public body to give reasons for a decision, however, in certain cases an obligation to give reasons may be imposed by legislation, governmental guidance, or common law.

The court will not interfere with the act or decision of a public body merely because it disagrees with or has doubts about the quality or merits of a particular decision.  It is necessary for a claimant to demonstrate a legal flaw.

Am I within time?

There are strict time limits which apply to judicial review:

  • A claim for judicial review should be filed promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date the grounds to make a claim first arose. This is usually the date of the decision you wish to challenge.
  • A claim for certain procurement judicial review must be filed within 30 days.

About the author

Ana Lelliott


Ana is a commercial litigation solicitor: she advises companies, individuals and partnerships about all manner of disputes.

Ana Lelliott

Ana is a commercial litigation solicitor: she advises companies, individuals and partnerships about all manner of disputes.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512