What the 2025 Bill Means for Judicial Review and Infrastructure Disputes

The focus is on making planning decisions happen faster and removing unnecessary delays. One of the biggest changes will make it harder for third parties to challenge development projects through the current Judicial Review process.

As a result, fewer legal challenges would stand in the way of building work, making it quicker and easier for developers to get started.

Judicial Review is an important part of our justice system, making sure public bodies follow the law and respect people’s rights. However, in the name of economic growth, the government wants to make Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) — like airports, railways, and nuclear power stations — less of what David Cameron called “bureaucratic rubbish.”

The changes to the Judicial Review system are aimed at speeding up development for major projects and helping the country deliver the critical infrastructure it needs for the future.

Removing the Paper Permission Stage

Currently, anyone wishing to challenge a planning permission against a development can start the process with a “paper-based stage”. This is essentially a filtering process where a judge looks at the written submissions and decides whether a case is arguable enough to be heard fully in court. If the judge agrees, it then the case can be heard at an oral hearing.

Under the new Bill, this paper permission stage will be removed entirely for NSIP-related cases. All claims will now go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court without needing that initial written assessment. The aim here is to simplify and speed up the process, so fewer challenges stall big infrastructure projects. By reducing the steps needed to launch a legal challenge, the government hopes to end what it sees as a “challenge culture” that has caused repeated delays to nationally significant developments. This new process is moving in favour of speeding up delivery over giving multiple layers of scrutiny to objecting parties.

Changes to Appeal Rights

At the moment, even if a case is ruled “totally without merit” during the permission stage or at the hearing, claimants can still apply to the Court of Appeal to review that decision. This creates another opportunity for delay, even for claims with very little legal grounding.

Once the new Bill is passed, this right will no longer exist for NSIP judicial reviews. If a High Court judge finds during the oral hearing that a case is “totally without merit”, the claimant won’t be able to appeal that decision. This cuts out another layer of review, meaning cases that are weak will be closed off more quickly, preventing them from clogging up the legal system. This change reduces time-wasting litigation and keeps infrastructure projects moving without constant interruption.

Positive Outcomes of the Reform

For many in the planning and development world, the Bill is a welcome shift. One of the major benefits is that it reduces the number of claims that are brought on very narrow, technical legal grounds. These types of challenges often rely on small procedural errors to try and stop planning permissions, even when the wider merits of the decision are strong. Removing the paper permission stage and restricting appeal rights could help the courts to focus on the real merit and substance of each claim, not just the technical details.

The Bill also makes it easier for judges to award legal costs against third parties who bring unsuccessful challenges. Although this power is currently discretionary to the courts, the Bill creates a clearer path to awarding costs. As such, objectors might be less willing to challenge on weak and tactical grounds. This shift can be seen as a way balancing powers, giving local authorities and developers more confidence that they will not face long and expensive legal battles unless the claim is genuinely strong.

The Bill also introduces a new requirement for NSIPs to be reviewed every five years. This is a significant update. A mandatory review period ensures all projects stay up to date with changing policies, technologies, and environmental priorities. For solicitors and firms working in planning law, this opens the door to getting involved in policy development and helping clients influence how future infrastructure projects are planned and approved.

Concerns and Challenges

Despite the positive intentions behind the Bill, many have raised concerns about the broader impact on access to justice and the role of judicial review in our society. Some legal commentators have pointed out that reducing opportunities for review could weaken the public body against governmental power. Judicial review is designed to make sure public decisions are legal and fair, therefore making the process harder for objectors to challenge risks poor or unlawful decisions to go unchallenged.

There are also concerns that changes to the process judicial review might set a precedent. Many fear that similar reforms could be made in other areas of law where judicial review plays a key role, such as immigration or environmental regulation. Critics warn that this could gradually lead to the role of the courts holding the state accountable.

Finally, some see the reforms as devaluing the principle of public liability. If legal remedies are made harder to access, and the risk of cost penalties rises, individuals and community groups may be discouraged from bringing challenges, even when they are valid. This could reduce public trust in the planning process and make decisions be pushed through without proper scrutiny.

How This Affects Dispute Resolution Solicitors

For dispute resolution solicitors, these changes mean a noticeable shift in how judicial review cases, particularly those involving major infrastructure, are approached and managed.

With the removal of the paper permission stage, solicitors will need to be far more rigorous in assessing the strength of a case before taking it forward. Without this ‘early filter-stage’, the first time the case is heard will be in front of a judge. That means preparation and case-assessment has to be sharper and faster from the start.

Where there used to be three stages — the paper stage, the oral hearing, and an appeal — now there will be just two for most cases, and only one for those considered totally without merit. The shorter timeline will put pressure on solicitors to move quickly and present complete, persuasive arguments at the oral hearing. The opportunity to amend or strengthen a case at a later stage will be limited, especially given the tighter rules around appeals. Clients will also need clear advice early in the process, especially around costs and risks.

However, this could also be a chance for dispute resolution solicitors to play a broader role. With the new requirement for five-year reviews of National Policy Statements the Bill will introduce, legal professionals can get more involved in the policy side of infrastructure planning. Advising clients on draft policy documents and public consultations could become a key part of legal practice in this area and will provide new work.

The introduction of the Bill will cause a shift: less courtroom, but more responsibility and urgency at the start of a planning related judicial review. Dispute resolution solicitors will need to adapt quickly, to balance new litigation strategies and shape a new framework within which future developments are approved.

How can Ellis Jones help?

Our dispute resolution solicitors take pride in offering clear and pragmatic advice to seek to ensure an early and cost-efficient conclusion, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01202 525333.