|
English Administrative Law
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
The Strand By Night (8859630213)
''The'' () is a grammatical article in English, denoting persons or things already mentioned, under discussion, implied or otherwise presumed familiar to listeners, readers, or speakers. It is the definite article in English. ''The'' is the most frequently used word in the English language; studies and analyses of texts have found it to account for seven percent of all printed English-language words. It is derived from gendered articles in Old English which combined in Middle English and now has a single form used with pronouns of any gender. The word can be used with both singular and plural nouns, and with a noun that starts with any letter. This is different from many other languages, which have different forms of the definite article for different genders or numbers. Pronunciation In most dialects, "the" is pronounced as (with the voiced dental fricative followed by a schwa) when followed by a consonant sound, and as (homophone of pronoun ''thee'') when followed by a v ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Companies Act 2006
The Companies Act 2006 (c 46) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law. The Act was brought into force in stages, with the final provision being commenced on 1 October 2009. It largely superseded the Companies Act 1985. The Act provides a comprehensive code of company law for the United Kingdom, and made changes to almost every facet of the law in relation to companies. The key provisions are: * the Act codifies certain existing common law principles, such as those relating to directors' duties. * it transposes into UK law the Takeover Directive and the Transparency Directive of the European Union * it introduces various new provisions for private and public companies. * it applies a single company law regime across the United Kingdom, replacing the two separate (if identical) systems for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. * it otherwise amends or restates almost all of the Companies Act 1985 to varying degrees. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mandamus
(; ) is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrie ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Certiorari
In law, ''certiorari'' is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. ''Certiorari'' comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "''Certiorari volumus''..." ("We wish to be made certain..."). Derived from the English common law, ''certiorari'' is prevalent in countries utilising, or influenced by, the common law''.'' It has evolved in the legal system of each nation, as court decisions and statutory amendments are made. In modern law, ''certiorari'' is recognized in many jurisdictions, including England and Wales (now called a "quashing order"), Canada, India, Ireland, the Philippines and the United States. With the expansion of administrative law in the 19th and 20th cen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgment or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention rights. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the convention, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex P Pinochet (No 2)
''R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate'' 0001 AC 61,119 an is a set of three judgments by the that examined whether former Chilean dictator was entitled to claim |
Porter V Magill
''Porter v Magill'' 001UKHL 67is a UK administrative law case decided by the House of Lords which arose out of the Homes for votes scandal involving Dame Shirley Porter. Under English law, the test for establishing bias was set out in ''Porter v Magill –'' whether a "fair minded and informed observer", having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a "real possibility" of bias. Facts The Conservative majority of Westminster Council adopted a policy to sell council houses in parts of the City where it was believed that home owners were more likely to vote Conservative. It became known as "the homes for votes scandal", involving Shirley Porter. As the leader of Westminster City Council, she helped formulate a policy which appeared to be designed to sell off the council housing at a lower price for the purpose of electoral advantage in marginal wards. The issue was, could the resulting investigation's decision be quashed where an initial press conference appeared to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Conflict Of Interest
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. An "interest" is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a particular social role or practice. By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other. Such a matter is of importance because under such circumstances the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised in a manner that affects the integrity or the reliability of the outcomes. Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds themselves occupying two soc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R (Corner House Research) V Director Of The Serious Fraud Office
''R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office'' 008UKHL 60is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law. Facts The Corner House (organisation), Corner House Research is a non-governmental organization involved in the Campaign Against Arms Trade coalition. The Corner House applied for judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision to stop investigating BAE Systems. The SFO director decided to halt a criminal investigation into alleged bribery in relation to an arms supply contract between BAE Systems and the Saudi Arabian authorities, known as the Al-Yamamah arms deal. The UK government gave arms in return for 600,000 barrels (95,000 cubic metres) of crude oil per day. The first sales were in September 1985, and more recently 72 Eurofighter Typhoons in August 2006. In August 2005 CEO Mike Turner said BAE earned £43bn and could earn £40bn more. In 2010, BAE pleaded guilty to charges in the US of false accounting and making misleadin ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
R V North And East Devon Health Authority, Ex P Coughlan
''R (Coughlan) v North and East Devon Health Authority'' 999EWCA Civ 1871is a UK enterprise law case, concerning health care in the UK. Facts Miss Coughlan claimed she should be able to remain at Mardon House, Exeter, purpose built for her and seven others with severe disabilities. After a 1971 road traffic accident, she became tetraplegic, needing constant care. Devon HA decided it should be closed in 1996, although she had been assured before it was a ‘home for life’. The Health Authority argued Mardon House had become ‘a prohibitively expensive white elephant’ which ‘left fewer resources available for other services’. Judgment The Court of Appeal held there was a legitimate expectation to fair treatment, with a substantive benefit of the ‘home for life’. Frustrating the expectation would be an abuse of power. However the duty to promote health, in statute, was not a duty to ensure the service was comprehensive. Lord Woolf MR said that the failure to keep the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Council Of Civil Service Unions V Minister For The Civil Service
''Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service'' , or the GCHQ case, is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law case that held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review. In 1984, by issuing an Order in Council using the royal prerogative, the government of Margaret Thatcher banned employees of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) from joining any trade union for "national security" reasons. The Council of Civil Service Unions claimed in judicial review that the order defeated their legitimate expectation of being able to collectively bargain for fair wages. The High Court of Justice held the Order in Council was invalid. The Court of Appeal held national security concerns meant that judicial review was impossible. The House of Lords held that exercises of the royal prerogative were subject to judicial review, but there were exceptions, including for matters of national security. This was a significant break from the previous ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Associated Provincial Picture Houses V Wednesbury Corporation
''Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation'' 9481 KB 223 is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness of public-body decisions that would make them liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness. The court gave three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in ''Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service'' by Lord Diplock: Facts In 1947 Associated Provincial Picture Houses was granted a licence by the Wednesbury Corporation in Staffordshire to operate a cinema on condition that no children under 15, whether accompanied by an adult or not, were admitted on Sundays. Under the Cinematograph Act 1909, cinemas could be open from Mondays to Saturdays but not on Sundays, and under a Regulation, the commanding officer of military forces stationed in a neig ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.jpg "Click for more on -> English Administrative Law")
.png "Click for more on -> The Strand By Night (8859630213)")
