Judicial review curbs extended to all major infrastructure projects in chancellor's growth push

Growth in every postcode

Chancellor John Healey used his first major speech since taking office to declare that judicial review will be curbed across all major infrastructure developments, extending reforms his predecessor Rachel Reeves first unveiled for critical energy schemes.

Speaking at the Manufacturing Technology Centre in Coventry, Healey set out a plan to 'drive growth in every postcode' and said the courts must not allow vexatious litigation to stand in the way. He pointed to the Sizewell C nuclear power station, which was held up by two judicial reviews — both ultimately dismissed by the courts.

Alongside the JR extension, the chancellor announced that the attorney general will publish updated guidance 'making clear that legal risk should inform ministers' decisions, not dictate them'. His argument: businesses take risks daily to invest, innovate and grow, and government should have the confidence to act in the public interest and be judged on outcomes.

Public law specialists back tougher costs sanctions

George McLellan, a disputes partner at public law specialist Sharpe Pritchard, welcomed the extension, noting that litigants in person are increasingly using AI tools to disrupt decision-making processes — a trend that imposes real burdens on public authorities and delays important infrastructure.

His suggestion: renewed focus on strengthening costs sanctions, so that individuals or entities pursuing meritless judicial review litigation face meaningful financial penalties.

Critics warn of a constitutional contradiction

Not everyone is convinced the plan achieves what it promises. Paolo Caldato, a dispute resolution partner at international firm Spencer West, argued the proposal will not stop so-called 'lawfare' — it will simply force it to evolve.

Caldato identified what he sees as two contradictory tensions at the heart of the policy. Constitutionally, bypassing standard judicial oversight risks eroding democratic accountability and the checks and balances on executive power. Practically, because the UK remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, leaving a human rights safeguard in place creates an obvious loophole: challengers will simply reshape their claims around article 8 rights.

His prediction is a nuanced one. The real victory for the Treasury will not be stopping legal challenges altogether, but compressing the calendar — forcing inevitable human rights battles into a hyper-accelerated court timetable that prevents the multi-year construction delays which have historically paralysed British infrastructure.

What this means for solicitors

For public law and planning practitioners, the direction of travel is clear: fewer, faster challenges on major schemes. Firms advising developers and government bodies can expect a tighter, more compressed litigation calendar, while claimant-side lawyers will need to pivot strategies towards human rights grounds and act at speed.

The AI dimension is also worth watching. If ministers use AI-assisted 'disruption' by litigants in person as justification for curbs, expect increased scrutiny of how claimants prepare and file JR applications — and possibly tougher case management from the courts themselves.

Our view

Governments of every stripe have complained about judicial review delaying infrastructure, and the track record of actually delivering reform is poor. But tying the curbs explicitly to growth — and to the attorney general's guidance on legal risk — suggests this administration wants to change the culture of decision-making, not just the procedure. The courtroom fight is not going away; it is moving to human rights territory and a much faster track. Solicitors on both sides should prepare accordingly.