800448
| Frage | Antworten |
| CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 | Prerogative powers are reviewable - Sets out grounds of review |
| CPR PD54 (Judicial Review) 2000 | Governs the procedure and remedies of judicial review |
| R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex p Caswell [1990] 2 All ER 434 | All remedies are discretionary |
| Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 | Judicial review is distringuishable from appeal on the absis that it reviews procedure used by public bodies rather than the merits of the decision |
| R v Panel on Takeovers and Megers, ex parte Datafin (1987) | A public body is a body performing governmental functions |
| R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan (1993) | Jockey club was declared not to be a public body |
| R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 | No sufficient interest as it was not their taxes |
| R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611 | Sufficient interest as those affected couldn't apply themselves and represented those affected |
| Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) | Complete ouster clauses are ineffective |
| Barnard v NDLB [1953] 1 All ER 1113 | Delegates cannot delegate power unless said so in the act |
| British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 | Discretion must be exercised in each individual case |
| Padfield v MAFF [1968] AC 997 | Discretionary powers cannot be refused when enacting act says they should be used - Ministers should consider purpose and context within statute when exercising discretionary power |
| Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 2 All Er 1106 | South African rugby players not allowed to visit home due to apartheid |
| Port Talbot Council ex p Jones [1988] 2 All ER 207 | Woman moved up housing list because she was a councillor |
| Asssociated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesday Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 | Wednesbury unreasonableness test |
| Bow Street Metropolitan Magistrate ex p DPP [1992] COD 267 | Police officers setting up individuals not convicted |
| Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280 | Specific party left out of consultation which was required by statute - policy decision ruled not to apply to specific party |
| R v Secretary of State for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 | Statutory requirement to consult not fulfilled - declaration of the law as remedy |
| R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 | Lord Hewart CJ: "It is not merely of some important but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" |
| Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724 | OLD LAW - Must be a perceived danger of bias to the reasonable person |
| Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 | Lord Hope: "Question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased" |
| Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 | First use of principle when a Chief Constable was fired without a chance to defend himself |
| R v Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371 | He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.