Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) is not supported. For the best experience please open using Chrome, Firefox, Safari or MS Edge

Article Insight

Judicial review Alternative remedies come first

Insights Public Law 16 Sep 2026 4 min read

Applicants who bypass an available appeal or review process may be refused permission to pursue judicial review, adding delay and cost to a challenge. A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that judicial review remains a remedy of last resort. Our Public, Regulatory & Investigations team examine how applicants can assess whether an alternative remedy is adequate, and the exceptional circumstances in which direct access to judicial review may be permitted.

What you need to know

  • The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judicial review should be treated as a remedy of last resort.
  • Applicants should ensure that they have exhausted any statutory appeal or review processes and any other adequate alternative remedies prior to seeking judicial review.
  • The Court discussed key principles regarding:
    • When alternative remedies preclude access to judicial review
    • What onus is on an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review, and
    • When rare exceptions might apply.

Introduction

In a recent judgment[1], the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is generally not available as a remedy for challenging administrative decisions which are capable of alternative appeal, review and/or revision. Crucially, the Court provided detailed guidance on the core principles and procedures applicable when determining:

  • Whether judicial review should be available as a remedy when alternative remedies exist, and
  • Whether an applicant has exhausted all adequate alternative remedies prior to initiating proceedings, or whether that applicant has established that a rare exception applies.

This decision therefore presents a practical framework for those seeking to question administrative actions as well as for the public authorities dealing with them.

Background

The proceedings arose from a dispute over the refusal of a welfare payment to Ms Amariei. Following an adverse initial decision by a deciding officer, an appeal under section 311, and a subsequent review by an Appeals Officer under section 317 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the applicant initiated judicial review proceedings. However, she had failed to exhaust all adequate statutory remedies under the Act - specifically, the statutory revision procedure of the Chief Appeals Officer under section 318. This procedure would itself have been susceptible to a point-of-law appeal to the High Court under section 327.

Guiding factors

The Supreme Court confirmed that the default position when bringing judicial review proceedings remained that all adequate remedies available to the applicant must be exhausted prior to seeking permission (known as “leave”) to apply for judicial review. As part of its decision, the Court set out a number of key guiding factors which prospective judicial review applicants should consider in assessing whether they have exhausted all adequate alternative remedies. These include the following:

  • The default position is that an applicant must pursue and exhaust any adequate alternative remedy before initiating judicial review proceedings.
  • Cases permitting judicial review despite the existence of an adequate alternative remedy are rare exceptions to the default rule.
  • Judicial discretion as to the granting of leave to apply for judicial review is bounded by constitutional principles and recognised legal values.
  • Courts are bound by structured case law principles when exercising discretion.
  • Applicants do not need to exhaust an alternative remedy if it is inadequate, if immediate access is required in the interests of justice, or if the challenge questions the basic fairness of the proceedings.
  • When seeking leave, the applicant must disclose all available alternative remedies to the court and establish arguable grounds (or substantial grounds, where that is the statutory threshold for obtaining leave) as to why they are inadequate, or as to why they do not come within any exception to the default rule.
  • Exceptional circumstances are required to justify departing from the default position.
  • Granting leave does not prevent the respondent from arguing at the substantive hearing that adequate alternative remedies had not been exhausted.

The Court explained the rationale for the principle that alternative remedies must be pursued before an applicant can launch judicial review proceedings. Doing so promotes efficiency in the dispute-resolution process and avoids unnecessary litigation costs. It also ensures that specialist administrative bodies re-evaluate the merits before judicial review becomes necessary. Finally, pursuing other remedies first gives effect to the legislature’s intent that the statutory processes specially provided for by the Oireachtas should be availed of before seeking to engage the Court’s judicial review jurisdiction.

Checklist for applicants

The key takeaway from Amariei is that judicial review is not intended to replace or run alongside statutory remedies. Where a statutory appeal, internal administrative review, or other adequate alternative remedy exists, applicants must exhaust it first. Exceptions to this default rule are rare.

This reaffirming and codifying decision will have significant practical and procedural implications for future applications for judicial review.

The principles expressed in the judgment will also serve as a useful, non-exhaustive checklist for applicants, who should carefully consider the following points:

  • Is a statutory right of appeal, whether to a tribunal or court, available?
  • Is an internal appeal, review, revision or similar procedure available?
  • Is the existing available alternative remedy adequate?
  • Are there any other existing alternative remedies that are adequate?
  • Have all existing adequate alternative remedies been exhausted?
  • Are time limits applicable to the dispute?
  • Does this case feature exceptional circumstances which may justify a departure from the default position?

Comment

The decision in Amariei reaffirms the well-established principle that where there is an adequate alternative remedy, recourse to judicial review may be disallowed. It sets out a detailed and multifaceted rationale for this. The Supreme Court also draws together and lists the general principles relating to the requirement to exhaust alternative remedies. It also provides practical and procedural guidance as to how to apply these in particular cases. The Court also acknowledges that, in rare and exceptional cases, a litigant may not be required to exhaust alternative remedies. The decision provides a comprehensive overview of the exhaustion-of-alternative-remedies principle, including practical guidance on:

  • When alternative remedies will be considered adequate, and when not, and
  • The burden on an applicant seeking leave to apply for judicial review to detail the available remedies and establish arguable (or where applicable, substantial) grounds for the absence of any truly adequate ones, or for exceptions to the default rule.

For more information, please contact a member of our Public, Regulatory and Investigations team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] Amariei v Chief Appeals Officer [2026] IESC 22

People also ask

An alternative remedy is a procedure – such as a statutory appeal (whether internal, or to a court or tribunal) or administrative review – capable of providing effective redress for an applicant's claim. If an alternative mechanism can properly address the substance of the grievance, courts will generally require the applicant to exhaust it before seeking judicial review unless rare exceptions apply, such as where the challenge goes directly to the basic fairness or integrity of the process, or where a particular exigency of justice demands immediate court action.

An internal statutory appeal or review, depending on its particular terms, will generally allow a body to re-examine the facts and merits of a decision under the relevant legislation. Judicial review does not re-try the merits; it is limited to examining whether the decision-maker acted within their legal powers and observed proper, fair or prescribed procedures.

The rule respects the intention of the legislature in providing for statutory appeal or review mechanisms, which were contemplated as being the prescribed redress mechanism, rather than judicial review. It promotes efficiency, avoids premature court intervention, reduces unnecessary legal costs, and reserves judicial review for exceptional cases, such as where the alternative remedy is not adequate or where the exigencies of justice require judicial review.

Related Content

View All →