Ad
related to: divisional court cases uk
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A divisional court, in relation to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, means a court sitting with at least two judges. [1] Matters heard by a divisional court include some criminal cases in the High Court (including appeals from magistrates' courts and in extradition proceedings) as well as certain judicial review cases.
The case, R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, went to the Divisional Court, where it was heard by judges Richard Gibbs and John Laws. [13] Bancoult's argument was made on several grounds: firstly, that the Crown could not exclude a British citizen from British territory, except in times of war, without a ...
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd is a judicial review case in English law decided by the Divisional Court of England and Wales on 10 November 1994 in which the World Development Movement challenged the decision of the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to spend £234 million on a ...
The Court's jurisdiction passed in each case to a new High Court of Justice and specifically to the King's Bench Division of that court. The court gave its name to London's King's Bench Prison, in which many defendants were subsequently incarcerated, and to King's Bench Walk in the Inner Temple.
The government's written case, prepared in advance of the hearing of the appeal, and subscribed by the Attorney General for England and Wales and the Advocate General for Scotland, [73] included footnotes referring to legal comment, critical of the High Court's judgment, on pages of UK Constitutional Law Association and two other websites:
Bell v Tavistock was a case before the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) on the question of whether puberty blockers could be prescribed to under-16s with gender dysphoria. [1] The Court of Appeal said that "it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence" to consent to receive puberty blockers. [2]
Oxford v Moss (1979) is an English criminal law case, dealing with theft of intangible property: information.A divisional court of High Court, to whom the legal question of the taking of a proof (final draft) exam paper was referred by magistrates, and which is not one of binding precedent, ruled that information could not be deemed to be intangible property and therefore was incapable of ...
On 27 November 2000, Judge Toulmin in the Technology and Construction Court (a division of the High Court) held, under the Limitation Act 1980, Factortame's claims against the UK government were "actions founded on tort", and that consequently a six-year limitation period applied. This meant that other claims against the Merchant Shipping Act ...