Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Friday, 26 November 2010
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Monday, 15 November 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Gallagher & Anor, R (on the application of) v Basildon District Council [2010] EWHC 2824 (Admin) (09 November 2010)
Gallagher & Anor, R (on the application of) v Basildon District Council [2010] EWHC 2824 (Admin) (09 Novembe2010)
SUCCESSFUL REVIEW OF COUNCIL'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH OMBUDSMAN'S RECOMMENDATION
VERY USEFUL JUDGEMENT ON IRRATIONALITY
SUCCESSFUL REVIEW OF COUNCIL'S REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH OMBUDSMAN'S RECOMMENDATION
VERY USEFUL JUDGEMENT ON IRRATIONALITY
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Anderson, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2553 (03 November 2010)
Anderson, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2553 (03 November 2010)
AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF GETTING IN A MUDDLE
and the need to keep clear notes and records
AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF GETTING IN A MUDDLE
and the need to keep clear notes and records
Monday, 8 November 2010
Phil Woolas loses first part of battle against court ruling - Telegraph
Phil Woolas loses first part of battle against court ruling - Telegraph
matter on paper.
Mr Justice Silber said a decision of the election court dealing with parliamentary election petitions "is not amenable to judicial review because it is a decision of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges".
EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED
matter on paper.
Mr Justice Silber said a decision of the election court dealing with parliamentary election petitions "is not amenable to judicial review because it is a decision of High Court judges sitting in their capacity as High Court judges".
EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED
Friday, 5 November 2010
Racal Communications Ltd, Re [1980] UKHL 5 (03 July 1980)
Racal Communications Ltd, Re [1980] UKHL 5 (03 July 1980)
"f the proper view of the action taken by the Court of Appeal in the instant case is that they purported to exercise on their own behalf that jurisdiction which they concluded Vinelott J. had " renounced ", they were in effect conducting a judicial review of a High Court decision. But it has to be said that they had no power to do that. The Court of Appeal is a member of the Supreme Court of Judicature, but" it is not a member of the High Court " (per Scrutton, L.J. in In re Carroll [1931] 1 K.B. 105, at 107), and all applications, for judicial review must be made to a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division and in the manner prescribed by R.S.C., Order 53, r. 3.
"f the proper view of the action taken by the Court of Appeal in the instant case is that they purported to exercise on their own behalf that jurisdiction which they concluded Vinelott J. had " renounced ", they were in effect conducting a judicial review of a High Court decision. But it has to be said that they had no power to do that. The Court of Appeal is a member of the Supreme Court of Judicature, but" it is not a member of the High Court " (per Scrutton, L.J. in In re Carroll [1931] 1 K.B. 105, at 107), and all applications, for judicial review must be made to a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division and in the manner prescribed by R.S.C., Order 53, r. 3.
Monday, 1 November 2010
F, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2243 (17 September 2010)
F, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 2243 (17 September 2010)
IMPORTANT CASE*****
In making his ruling that the two-person rule was not satisfied in this case, the learned judge referred to and applied the law on this point as most recently expounded by Thomas LJ in the judgment of this court in R v Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2062.
IMPORTANT CASE*****
In making his ruling that the two-person rule was not satisfied in this case, the learned judge referred to and applied the law on this point as most recently expounded by Thomas LJ in the judgment of this court in R v Hamilton [2007] EWCA Crim 2062.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
