Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Judicial review three month deadline runs from decision: judge

Judicial review three month deadline runs from decision: judge

10th January 2020

The three month time limit for bringing a petition for judicial review begins to run on the date on which the decision sought to be challenged is made, but if the decision is not received until a later date that can be taken into account in considering whether to extend the time, a Court of Session judge has ruled.

Lord Ericht gave his decision in allowing an application by Adeyimi Odubajo, challenging a decision of the Home Secretary regarding his application for asylum, to proceed although presented more than three months after the date of decision.

The decision, that his application was not a fresh claim, was made on 5 June 2019 and received by the petitioner's solicitor on 7 June; the petition was presented to the court on 6 September.

For the petitioner it was argued that until he was notified of the decision, he could not bring a challenge to the court; it was impossible for him to consider grounds of challenge.

Lord Ericht noted that s 27A(1) of the Court of Session Act required an application to be made before the end of three months "beginning with the date on which the grounds giving rise to the application first arise". The meaning of this provision had not previously been considered in a Scottish case. However, "It is an important principle in respect of good public administration that there should be certainty about the validity of administrative decisions... The starting of the calculation of the time limit from the date of the decision contributes towards that certainty. The starting of the time limit period at some later date upon which a petitioner has become aware of the decision is not conducive to that certainty."

Having that certainty would also enable the proceedings to progress more expeditiously, without the need to establish whether they had been brought in time.

He ruled: "In my opinion the three month time limit under s 27A(1)(a) begins to run on the date on which the decision is made, but if the decision is not received until a later date, that can be taken into account in considering whether to extend the time under s 27A(1)(b)."

However the grounds on which the petition was based had sufficient merit for further consideration, and it would be equitable in all the circumstances to extend the period to the date on which the decision letter was received. "The delay is minimal and reflects the period between the date of the decision and the date of receipt. There is no prejudice to the respondents or any third party. As the proceedings were brought within that extended period, I find that this petition has been brought timeously."

Click here to view Lord Ericht's opinion.

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited