Ad
related to: uk judicial review casescourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision. If the court finds the decision unlawful it ...
This is a list of judgments given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between the court's inception on 1 October 2009 and the most recent judgments. Cases are listed in order of their neutral citation and where possible a link to the official text of the decision in PDF format has been provided.
Case name Citation Date Legal subject Summary of decision R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans [2018] UKSC 1 24 January Constitutional law, Search and seizure: Closed material procedures could be used in a judicial review of a Crown Court decision and there was no minimum core of material that the government was required to disclose to the other party where such procedures were used.
By majority decision the court held decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal could be subject to judicial review in the High Court and implied that parliament may not use legislation to "oust" the jurisdiction of the courts to undertake judicial review. [22] Telereal Trillium v Hewitt (Valuation Officer) [2019] UKSC 23: 15 May
A body which takes a decision in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity (in this case, the Parole Board), and then declines to defend it when it is challenged in court proceedings, will not ordinarily face an order for costs. [51] Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE [2020] UKSC 51: 11 December 2020 Competition Law
"Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 [1] is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness in the decision of a public body, which would make it liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Four prisoners, Stephen Doody, John David Pierson, Elfed Wayne Smart and Kenneth Pegg, [1] serving mandatory life sentences, requested judicial review after the Home Secretary refused to release them after serving their minimum terms, but gave no reason for the decision.