CONCLUSION
[3.97] There are four points that may be made by way of conclusion on the judicial review procedure that is contained in the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and RCJ Order 53:
i.
The judicial review procedure should be used only where there is (a) a decision, act, failure to act, or other measure that (b) sounds in public law and which (c) may appropriately be challenged by way of judicial review. Judicial review should, in general, therefore not be used where a matter is one of private law or where the individual has an effective alternative remedy in (typically) statute. Applicants should also seek to avoid bringing judicial review proceedings prematurely and they should observe the key points of the Pre-Action Protocol (see [3.04]-[3.16]).ii. Applicants should observe the various procedural requirements at the leave stage and at the substantive hearing of an application for judicial review. Although the courts have shown some flexibility on aspects of procedure (see, for example, [3.66]-[3.68] on standing, and [3.93] on out-of-time appeals), they typically emphaÂsise the importance of adhering to the procedure (see, for example, [3.28]-[3.30] on delay, albeit that the courts may also be flexible here where there is â€?good reason’ for any delay; the position is also more complex when EU law is in issue).
iii. Various points of guidance on the judicial review procedure can be found in the case law of the courts and in related Practice Directions.[664] Failure to act in accordÂance with this guidance can result in an application for leave being refused or, where leave is granted, in the dismissal of the substantive application. Failure to follow guidance may, depending on context, alternatively have implications in costs.[665]
iv. The remedies available on an application for judicial review are discretionary. Subject to the demands of the ECHR and the effectiveness principle in EU law, the courts may thus decline to grant a remedy where they consider, among other things, that: (a) the remedy would be of limited utility; (b) the conduct of the applicant is not deserving of the remedy sought; (c) there has been undue delay in bringing the application; (d) the nature of the applicant’s interest is such that no remedy should issue; and (e) effective alternative remedies are available (see [3.81]-[3.87]).