Congestion charge judicial review

Information about a legal challenge to the congestion charge.

In October 2025, Open Roads for Oxford Ltd (ORFO) notified Oxfordshire County Council that it intended to challenge the temporary congestion charge by way of judicial review. This was done through a formal “letter before action”, which is the normal first step before a case can be taken to court. The council responded later that month, setting out why it considered the scheme to be lawful.

ORFO then issued a judicial review claim in the High Court (Administrative Court) in December 2025. The claim challenged the lawfulness of the temporary congestion charge. In response, the council filed its defence just before Christmas, explaining why the claim should not be allowed to proceed.

In January 2026, a High Court judge considered the claim on the papers, without a hearing, and refused permission for the judicial review to go ahead. This meant the judge considered that the claim did not meet the legal threshold required to proceed to a judicial review hearing.

Order by Mr Justice Johnson (pdf format, 212KB)

ORFO then exercised its right to ask for that decision to be reconsidered at a short oral hearing, known as a renewal hearing. This hearing took place on 24 March 2026 before Mr Justice Fordham.

At the end of the renewal hearing, the judge dismissed ORFO’s application and again refused permission for judicial review. Summary of this judgement is given below.

Fordham J judgment 24.3.26 (pdf format, 209KB)

ORFO have been ordered to pay the costs incurred by the council defending this claim, although the amount they are required to pay is capped at £10,000 by the Aarhus Convention.

Summary of High Court judgment, March 2026

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd argued that the council's decision to introduce the congestion charge was unlawful. The judge considered whether the challenge should be allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The judge refused permission for the case to proceed. This means the legal challenge did not succeed at this stage, and the congestion charge remains in place.

Open Roads for Oxford Limited challenged the council's September 2025 decision to introduce the scheme for two main reasons (consultation and equality impacts):

Consultation: The judge considered the council's consultation process and cabinet decision, and held that the consultation complied with the statutory duty under the Transport Act 2000 and public‑law requirements, and therefore that the cabinet decision was not unlawful on consultation grounds
Equality impacts: The judge held that there was no breach of the public sector equality duty and no realistic prospect of establishing unlawfulness arising from the equality considerations before cabinet

Overall, the judge found that the challenge had no realistic prospect of success. As a result, permission for judicial review was refused and the case was dismissed at this stage.

Open Roads for Oxford Limited is entitled to apply to the Court of Appeal if it believes the judge has made an error.

Summary of High Court judgment, March 2026

Court documents

Sign up to hear from us

Information