Government’s decision in September 2026 to pause and review much of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) programme has not removed the prospect of judicial review. Indeed, it has created a difficult legal and practical position for councils: some ministerial decisions have been withdrawn, others remain in place but are subject to review – and the time limits for legal challenge continue to apply.

On 7 September, the Government withdrew its March 2026 reorganisation decisions for Essex (including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock), Hampshire (including the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton), Norfolk and Suffolk. Decisions announced on 16 July for 14 other areas were paused and placed under review. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, where decisions remained outstanding, were also included in the review. The Government stated that its decision concerning Surrey was unaffected.

As of 16 October, just three of the 19 Government decisions are not facing judicial review action or the threat of a challenge. This insight explains why withdrawal of a ministerial decision is legally different from an administrative pause in implementing or reconsidering a decision that has not been withdrawn, and why neither should be confused with a court-ordered stay of judicial review proceedings.

Why are councils taking protective steps?

Under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 54.5(1), a judicial review claim form must be filed promptly and, in any event, not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose (shorter periods apply in some contexts, such as planning and procurement). The three-month period is an outer limit, not an automatic grace period: a claim filed within three months may still be challenged for lack of promptness. The applicable date depends on the decision and grounds in question; it should not simply be assumed that every claim relating to the 16 July announcement expires on 16 October.

Importantly, Government’s LGR programme pause does not itself suspend the judicial review time limit. Nor does sending a pre-action protocol letter stop time running, and the parties cannot extend the CPR 54.5 time limit by agreement (CPR 54.5(2)); only the court can extend time, and it does so sparingly. Consequently, councils concerned about the lawfulness of a July decision may need to issue a claim before the review concludes, even where they would prefer to avoid litigation.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review encourages parties to exchange information, clarify issues and explore resolution before proceedings. A letter before claim (often called a pre-action protocol letter) is therefore distinct from issuing a claim in the Administrative Court. Where time is short, a council may issue a protective claim and then seek a stay by court order while discussions or the Government’s review continue. A stay is not automatic.

What has happened in the affected areas?

Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk 

Government withdrew the March decisions affecting these areas on 7 September, following updated legal advice. A Q&A published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) states that these four decisions were subject to legal proceedings and that the timing of those proceedings informed the withdrawal. The Secretary of State confirmed that Government lawyers notified the court. The procedural outcome of each claim (for example, whether it has been stayed, withdrawn or otherwise concluded) has not been published. Withdrawal of the challenged decisions and disposal of the proceedings are distinct legal steps, and matters such as costs may still need to be resolved.

Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland 

On 15 October, all seven Leicestershire district and borough councils confirmed that they had filed a protective judicial review claim. Five had previously sent a pre-action letter. Separately, Leicestershire County Council lodged protective proceedings; its Cabinet on 13 October supported continuing and serving the claim and seeking a stay pending the review. Whether a stay is granted will be a matter for the court.

Oxfordshire and West Berkshire

Oxfordshire County Council has reportedly sent a pre-action protocol letter seeking information about the decision-making and evidence for the proposed three-unitary arrangement. That is a pre-action step, rather than the issue of proceedings.

Lancashire

Lancashire County Council has considered and authorised protective legal steps because the July decision has not been withdrawn and the judicial review clock continues to run. Authorising proceedings is not the same as issuing them, and as of 16 October the council has not publicly confirmed whether a claim has been filed.

Other areas

East Sussex County Council confirmed that it issued a protective judicial review application on 9 October and is seeking a stay pending the Government’s review. Nottinghamshire County Council has sent pre-action correspondence and taken a formal decision on legal action. Other reported activity in Derbyshire, Devon, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lincolnshire and Staffordshire ranges from correspondence and formal authorisation to issued proceedings, which means that reported “challenges” are not all at the same stage.

What might the challenges concern?

The legal issues are not simply whether one map or configuration of unitary authorities is preferable to another. Potential judicial review grounds may include:

• whether the relevant statutory requirements were observed,
• whether the criteria set out in the Secretary of State’s invitation were properly applied,
• whether consultation was legally adequate,
• whether decision makers took account of relevant evidence and considerations,
• whether reasons or supporting analysis are sufficient in the particular legal context,
• whether the public sector equality duty was complied with, and
• whether the decision was irrational or otherwise unlawful.

The principal statutory framework is Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the 2007 Act), and the merits of any ground will depend on the facts of each case.

Judicial review is concerned with legality, not with the court substituting its preferred model of local government for the Secretary of State’s. Equally, a decision to proceed with a preferred proposal is not necessarily the final statutory step required to create new authorities. Implementation generally requires a Structural Changes Order under Section 7 of the 2007 Act (which is subject to Parliamentary approval) together with further secondary legislation.

What happens next?

The Government has promised further clarity following its review. The Minister for Local Government’s letter of 7 September also asked councils to cease implementing the July decisions and confirmed that scheduled May 2027 elections would proceed on existing boundaries. Meanwhile, councils must manage legal deadlines alongside uncertainty over budgets, staff, transition arrangements and future governance.

For monitoring officers and legal teams, the immediate priorities are to:

• identify precisely which ministerial decision affects their authority;
• determine whether it has been withdrawn or merely paused;
• establish when any grounds of challenge first arose;
• distinguish correspondence from proceedings actually issued;
• consider whether protective filing, a stay application or another course is justified; and
• ensure that relevant documents and decision records are preserved.

Any existing litigation should be reviewed separately for orders, directions, costs and potential discontinuance.

How Capsticks can help

To discuss the legal, governance and practical implications of LGR decisions or the programme review, please contact Tiffany Cloynes, Head of Local Government, Partner Peter Edwards or Legal Director Rebecca Gilbert.