1-20 of 33 Results

  • Keyword: standing x
Clear all

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Denley’s Trust Deed [1969] 1 Ch 373, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Sir William Wade and Christopher Forsyth

Remedies are awarded only to litigants who have sufficient locus standi, or standing. The law starts from the position that remedies are correlative with rights, and that only those whose own rights are at stake are eligible to be awarded remedies. No one else will have the necessary standing before the court. This chapter discusses the old and new law of standing; discretionary power of the court to withhold remedies; exhaustion of remedies; protective and preclusive (ouster) clauses; exclusive statutory remedies; and ‘default powers’, i.e. special powers under which ministers may take steps to compel local authorities to carry out their functions properly.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The case concerned whether an interest group formed to protect a recently rediscovered Elizabethan theatre had sufficient interest to bring a judicial review against a decision not to protect the theatre. The case is considered with the Fleet Street Casuals case [1982] AC 617 and Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548 in mind. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Neville Estates v Madden [1962] Ch 832, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as the Fleet Street Casuals case). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 QB 504, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). The case concerned whether an interest group formed to protect a recently rediscovered Elizabethan theatre had sufficient interest to bring a judicial review against a decision not to protect the theatre. The case is considered with the Fleet Street Casuals case [1982] AC 617 and Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548 in mind. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Neville Estates v Madden [1962] Ch 832, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Neville Estates v Madden [1962] Ch 832, Chancery Division. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

This chapter provides an introduction to judicial review and its various features and requirements. It starts by exploring the meaning and purpose of judicial review, explaining the particular functions of the courts and the jurisdiction that justifies their scrutiny of administrative matters. It then sets out the legal basis for judicial review and the process through which applications proceed, which while rooted in statute, has developed incrementally through both case law and the 1998 Woolf Reforms. The chapter considers issues relating to access to review, exploring the legal requirements that must be fulfilled before an application for judicial review can be entertained by the Administrative Court. This includes a discussion of standing, which determines who can bring a claim, and consideration of the issues relating to the public law/private law divide, which concerns against whom a claim can be brought and the matter upon which that claim can be founded.

Chapter

This chapter provides an introduction to judicial review and its various features and requirements. It starts by exploring the meaning and purpose of judicial review, explaining the particular functions of the courts and the jurisdiction that justifies their scrutiny of administrative matters. It then sets out the legal basis for judicial review and the process through which applications proceed, which while rooted in statute, has developed incrementally through both case law and the 1998 Woolf Reforms. The chapter considers issues relating to access to review, exploring the legal requirements that must be fulfilled before an application for judicial review can be entertained by the Administrative Court. This includes a discussion of standing, which determines who can bring a claim, and consideration of the issues relating to the public law/private law divide, which concerns against whom a claim can be brought and the matter upon which that claim can be founded.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the bodies subject to judicial review and who can make claims for judicial review. An action for judicial review can be brought only against a body exercising a public function. If public authorities are carrying out a private function, they are not subject to judicial review, unless there is a public law element. Private bodies are, generally, not subject to judicial review unless it can be shown that they are carrying out a public function, such as administering a statutory scheme. If the judicial review concerns human rights, then the claim must be brought against a public authority. The Human Rights Act 1998 creates two kinds of public authorities: core public authorities and functional public authorities. Core public authorities are public authorities, such as government departments and the police force. Functional public authorities have private and public functions, but only their public functions are subject to the Act. The rules of standing in judicial review cases determine whether individuals or groups are permitted to challenge a decision of a public body. An individual or organization may bring a claim for judicial review only with the permission of the courts, which means that standing restricts the people and organizations that may bring a judicial review claim.

Chapter

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. The EU develops policy through regulations, directives, and decisions. Any developed legal system must have a mechanism for testing the legality of such measures. This chapter focuses on access to justice and review of legality by the EU Courts. There are a number of ways in which EU norms can be challenged, but the principal Treaty provision is Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 230 EC). Five conditions must be satisfied before an act can successfully be challenged: (i) the relevant body must be amenable to judicial review; (ii) the act has to be of a kind that is open to challenge; (iii) the institution or person making the challenge must have standing to do so; (iv) there must be illegality of a type mentioned in Article 263(2); and (v) the challenge must be brought within the time limit indicated in Article 263(6). The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of legal challenge to EU norms in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

Chapter

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. The EU develops policy through regulations, directives, and decisions. Any developed legal system must have a mechanism for testing the legality of such measures. This chapter focuses on access to justice and review of legality by the EU Courts. There are a number of ways in which EU norms can be challenged, but the principal Treaty provision is Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 230 EC). Five conditions must be satisfied before an act can successfully be challenged: (i) the relevant body must be amenable to judicial review; (ii) the act has to be of a kind that is open to challenge; (iii) the institution or person making the challenge must have standing to do so; (iv) there must be illegality of a type mentioned in Article 263(2); and (v) the challenge must be brought within the time limit indicated in Article 263(6). The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of legal challenge to EU norms in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

Chapter

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the bodies subject to judicial review and who can make claims for judicial review. An action for judicial review can be brought only against a body exercising a public function. If public authorities are carrying out a private function, they are not subject to judicial review unless there is a public law element. Private bodies are, generally, not subject to judicial review unless it can be shown that they are carrying out a public function, such as administering a statutory scheme. If the judicial review concerns human rights, then the claim must be brought against a public authority. The Human Rights Act 1998 creates two kinds of public authorities: core public authorities and functional public authorities. Core public authorities are public authorities, such as government departments and the police force. Functional public authorities have private and public functions, but only their public functions are subject to the Act. The rules of standing in judicial review cases determine whether individuals or groups are permitted to challenge a decision of a public body. An individual or organization may bring a claim for judicial review only with the permission of the courts, which means that standing restricts the people and organizations that may bring a judicial review claim.