Key updates to the Administrative Court Guide

The Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide (“ACO Guide”) has recently been updated to reflect legislative and practice changes, affecting the Administrative Court over the past year.

The ACO Guide sets out each stage of the judicial review claim process and is an essential resource for anyone involved in proceedings before the Administrative Court.

The new 2025 edition replaces the 2024 edition. Although most of the guidance remains unchanged, four significant updates are highlighted below.

1. E-filing

A new paragraph on e-filing has been added to the Introduction. Paragraph 1.10 states:

“1.10.1 The use of E-filing (the external element of CE-File) for claims in the Administrative Court is optional, save in respect of Immediate applications and Extradition appeals or applications which should not be filed via E-file but must continue to be filed via the specific email inbox.

Immediate applications via: administrativecourtoffice.immediates@justice.gov.uk

Extradition appeals/applications via: administrativecourtoffice.crimex@justice.gov.uk

Any urgent applications using Form N463 in the regions should also be notified to the appropriate regional office in accordance with PD54B and PD54C and not be filed via E-File.”

E-filing was introduced to the Administrative Court in September 2024. It allows court users to issue and file documents, pay court fees and review and track their cases online.

While e-filing is optional for most claims, it is important to note that certain applications cannot be submitted in this way. Guidance on lodging applications requiring urgent consideration is set out in Section 17 of the ACO Guide.

2. Use of AI

New paragraph 20.2.5 of the ACO Guide expressly advises against relying on AI tools and unverified sources in case preparation. The paragraph states:

“When referring to an authority in a skeleton argument, or more generally at a hearing, it is necessary to ensure that the authority is genuine. Reliance should not be placed on auto-generated authorities using artificial intelligence tools, or on the fruits of a client’s research, without checking the source directly. The citation of a false authority may lead to public admonition of the responsible lawyer, the imposition of a costs order, the imposition of a wasted costs order, striking out a case, referral to a regulator, the initiation of contempt proceedings, and referral to the police.”

This addition reflects the judgment in R (Ayinde) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), handed down on 6 June 2025, in which the Divisional Court strongly cautioned legal professionals about the risks of using generative AI for legal research and drafting.

The new guidance underlines the need for lawyers to understand and comply with their duties to the court.

3. Corporate witness statements

The new edition of the ACO Guide provides guidance on the use of corporate witness statements in judicial review proceedings. New paragraph 11.2.4 states:

“Defendants to judicial review proceedings should consider carefully whether it is appropriate for factual evidence to be given in the form of a “corporate witness statement”, i.e. a statement conveying the collective evidence of a company or other body. If evidence is to be given in this way, the requirements of CPR 32 PD para 18.2 must be complied with. This requires the witness to indicate (1) which of the statements in it are made from the witness’s own knowledge and which are matters of information or belief and (2) the source for any matters of information or belief. This requirement is not satisfied merely by saying that the source is a government department or agency.”

The inclusion of this paragraph stems from the observations of the Court in HM Attorney General v BBC [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), [97]–[106].

This update is of particular relevance to public authority defendants, who frequently rely on evidence drawn from across departments or agencies.

Such bodies should ensure that any corporate witness statement clearly identifies which statements are based on the witness’s own knowledge and the specific source of any information or belief, rather than simply citing a department or public body.

4. Introduction of the Procurement Act 2023

Paragraph 6 of the ACO Guide has been updated to reflect the coming into force of the Procurement Act 2023 (“PA 2023”). In particular, paragraph 6.4.3.3 has been amended and now reads as follows (amended text is underlined):

“As from 24 February 2025, the Procurement Act 2023 governs the procedure by which public bodies may outsource public services (sometimes referred to as “procurement”). Where the claim relates to a decision under the Act, the claim must be started within the time specified by section 106: 30 days from the date when the claimant first knew or ought to have known that grounds for starting the proceedings had arisen. The Court may extend time if there is good reason for doing so, but the extension cannot go beyond 3 months from the day when the claimant first knew, or ought to have known, about the circumstances giving rise to the claim. For further guidance on judicial review of procurement decisions, see para 6.7 of this Guide.”

Paragraph 6.7 of the ACO Guide provides further details around judicially reviewing decisions taken under the PA 2023.

5. Other updates

Further notable changes include updated fees (see Annex 2) and a clarification in paragraph 15.3.3 that a lack of candour may be taken into account when the court considers whether to grant permission.

Taken together, these updates underline the Administrative Court’s continuing emphasis on procedural rigour. Administrative Court practitioners should familiarise themselves with the new edition.