Judicial Review is the process by which the courts will review the decisions of bodies that perform public functions.  However, not all decision that a public law body makes have a public law nature and there are lots of decisions, for example, entering into a contract for the supply of office equipment that are unlikely to have a public law dimension.  It would clearly be wrong if such decisions could be challenged just because the decision was made by a public body, because it would give entities purely governed by private law an unfair advantage in their dealings with public bodies.  In the majority of cases, deciding whether a decision is purely a private, as opposed to public law decision, is relatively easy.  In the recent case of R (on the application of Ames) v The Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2250 (Admin) a claim was brought by a defendant involved in criminal proceedings who sought legal aid to meet his legal costs.  The costs in questions related to his representation in the proceedings by two barristers.  The case involved a complex fraud trial that was due to take around 70 days to hear and the review of up to 120,000 pages of spreadsheets and a total of 100m pages of defence material.  In such cases, because the fees are potentially so high, the Lord Chancellor's Department will seek to agree a fixed fee for representation in advance.  However, in this instance, it was not possible to reach agreement and a claim for Judicial Review was made .  This was based on the Lord Chancellor's Department's unwillingness to make a higher offer, which it was alleged was irrational/unreasonable in a public law sense.  The Court agreed with the claimant and in the course of doing so helpfully set out a six point test for determining whether a decision of a public body is amenable to Judicial Review (see below).