Sentences with phrase «consider judicial review»

You may want to consider judicial review if you have received a decision from a tribunal which did not go in your favour and you believe that the decision was unreasonable or unfair.

You may want to consider judicial review if you were a part of a dispute resolution proceeding at the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) which did not go in your favour and you believe that the decision made by the arbitrator at the hearing was unreasonable or unfair.

Now Chris Morgan, chair of the Robert Owen Academies Trust, said his organisation is considering a judicial review of the decision to close the school.

Not exact matches

«I inadvertently suggested to you that clause 64 contains a provision for the court to grant permission to proceed with a judicial review where conduct is highly likely to have not made a difference if it considered there were exceptional circumstances to do so.

This kind of landmark judicial pronouncement is understandably rare in every jurisdiction not excluding the most advanced democracies for the obvious reason that it has always been considered prudent for the preservation of the state, democracy and the peace to ensure that proactive mechanisms are put in place before, during and after voting day to deliver credible electoral outcomes rather than rely on costly post electoral judicial reviews.

The London Taxi Driver's Association are currently considering taking the decision to a judicial review.

CEHR chair Trevor Phillips has written to Jacqui Smith warning pre-charge detention risks disproportionately affecting Muslims and warned the CEHR would consider seeking a judicial review if it is passed.

The judge said the decision about whether to hold a judicial review should be heard in open court, after privately considering the merits of the application.

Hilary Meredith, CEO of Hilary Meredith Solicitors Ltd, has been instructed by clients currently subject to judicial process and investigations to consider bringing the Judicialjudicial process and investigations to consider bringing the JudicialJudicial Review.

When we talk about defending and protecting our judiciary, none of our work is more important than the peer reviews we continue to perform on judicial nominees being considered for lifetime appointments by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In 1797, one of the arguments considered whether the Constitution provided for judicial review.

We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1068 (1994), to consider whether Oregon's limited judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards is consistent with our decision in Has lip.

A lengthy procedural history included Ms. Johnstone's complaint being initially dismissed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which decision was subsequently considered by the Federal Court on judicial review (2007 FC 36), and then by the Federal Court of Appeal (2008 FCA 101).

I am not convinced it is entirely unreasonable to consider whether there could be legal reforms permitting the Commission to have some role in serving respondents in applications for judicial review.

They include: considering where children and other vulnerable groups are disadvantaged by Laspo, and amending appropriately; reversing changes to judicial review; developing a new process for exceptional funding; and abolishing the mandatory telephone gateway as the only route to accessing certain civil legal aid services.

The Court was in this case probably not really confronted with an «uncontrollable centre of power» considering the procedural and substantive checks and balances imposed in the regulation as well as the possibility of judicial review by the Court and therefore did not see the need to annul a regulation that itself tried to curb an uncontrollable centre of power: the financial markets.

Judicial review of injury to dignity awards is not to be approached in the same manner as a quantum appeal in a personal injury case, where the Courts consider whether the award «was a wholly erroneous estimate of the loss by comparison to the range established by the cases».

If you are considering the route of judicial review, get legal advice.

In terms of procedural fairness, that is an acceptable area for judicial review but it should not, in my view, be extended to consider the substance of the offence created.»

Such a decision taken in that regard is not amenable to judicial review, «regardless of whether, by that decision, the Parliament itself takes the appropriate measures or considers that it is unable to do so and refers the petition to the competent institution or department so that that institution or department may take those measures.»

From such an assessment of the rules, the Court suddenly jumped to the conclusion that «in those circumstances, a decision by which the Parliament considers that a petition addressed to it does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU must be amenable to judicial review, since it is liable to affect the right of petition of the person concerned.

Cs made their claim and in doing so, relied upon the commentary in Volume 38 (2) of the Encyclopaedia of Forms & Precedents that states the inclusion of a «call - in» clause should at least be considered in any case other than: «the very simplest cases such as an application for change of use or for the carrying out of relatively minor building operations where... it is unlikely that the grant of planning permission would be challenged by third parties by way of judicial review....»

His lordship thought it better to leave the question of amenability to judicial review out of account when considering the issue of public authority, not least to avoid a danger of circularity of reasoning.

In this blog I consider the Administrative Court's Judicial Review Guide 2016 («the Guide»).

Responding to Judge Newman's dissent, Justice Breyer emphasized that AIA trials are very different from federal court proceedings considering patent validity, observing that in significant respects, «inter partes review is less like a judicial proceeding and more like a specialized agency proceeding.»

65 ILCS 5 / 11-13-25 Any special use, variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance adopted by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule or non-home rule, shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the process of its adoption is considered administrative for other purposes.

If you are considering an application for judicial review, we recommend reading Dunsmuir.

Attorneys go through a four - step process, whereby a judicial review board, composed of former judges, considers the final candidates that have epitomized the ideals of the legal profession.

He went on to say (obiter) that he considered that the suspension procedure complied with the provisions of Art 6 because Malik had the ability to seek relief by way of judicial review.

On the other hand, all of the statutes clearly refer to an appeal so that it could be argued that the problem was created by the Supreme Court in Dr. Q. when it held that appeals from administrative tribunals should be considered on the same standard as judicial review.

It should be considered good practice to prepare a document setting out the investigatory scope, especially when judicial review seems likely.

(13) In reviewing reports, considering matters and making decisions under subsections (8) and (10), the Judicial Council shall follow its guidelines and rules of procedure established under subsection 51.1 (1).

We consider candidates based upon law school performance, activities, judicial clerkships, professional experience, personal references, participation in Law Review and Moot Court and clinical legal work.

Of general interest is that findings against Government in Judicial Review proceedings may not automatically be relied upon to found similar civil claims for compensation depending on the way the administrative court has considered the issue.

The accountability of the ECB was discussed, and in particular the extent to which an effective means of keeping the ECB's actions in check through judicial review was considered.

And this type of analysis on judicial review necessarily requires that adjudicative decision makers provide adequate reasons, explaining their decisions — and not leave it to the court to fashion possible reasons [16]-- and that there be a complete record — not just what was considered, but everything bearing on the matter that should have been considered, in the case of legislative type decisions such as the adoption of bylaws and rules.

On judicial review, the third party union argued that the failure to consider its argument was a breach of procedural fairness.

Sometimes this involves issuing Judicial Review proceedings, a court process where a High Court Judge considers whether the local authority has acted rationally and reasonably.

Federal Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck's decision in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe (Southern District of New York, 2012) is considered the first official judicial endorsement of predictive coding as a way to review documents.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) allowed the IPC's appeal (per Justices McLachlin CJ, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein), reinstating the adjudicator's order and remitting the matter to the chambers judge to consider the issues that were not dealt with in the original judicial review.

However, it is clear that Lord Toulson (rightly or wrongly) considers that judicial review in circumstances such as these would not be substantive review in its classic, outcomes - oriented sense, and that his approach may instead be based upon narrower grounds concerning the institutional particularities of the situation.

After reviewing all of the information and considering relating circumstances in hearings last week, a hearing committee of the Canadian Judicial Council stated in an oral ruling that Quebec Justice Michel Déziel should not be removed.

The availability of protective costs orders (PCOs) in judicial review proceedings has, since first considered in R v Lord Chancellor ex p Child Poverty Action Group [1999] 1 WLR (CPAG), become an important part of the judiciary's response to such concerns.

Judge Levenson considered the case after BL Claims Solicitors successfully submitted an application for judicial review to the Upper Tier Tribunal.

Administrative law — Judicial review — Municipal law — Taxation — Real property tax — Payments made by Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M - 13.

At present, a distinction is often drawn between restrictions imposed by European legislation, for example on habitat protection, and that offered by domestic law; European requirements are often shown greater deference by decision makers, and by the courts when discretion to quash (in judicial and statutory review cases) is considered.

[20] Here, for instance, the citizenship decision would be reviewed on domestic judicial review grounds, but if it had an EU law aspect would fall to be considered in accordance with the EU principle of proportionality.

Likewise the (non) possibility for individuals to challenge regulations before the CJEU, the right of action (and rule of law) principle can not circumvene the Treaties: the issue is that the CJEU stated that judicial review on CFPS is a matter «within» the sphere of EU Treaties, so that MS (and EU Institutions) can not take action which may impact on them by using «outside» procedures; the rationale is the same used in other cases: if the matter is covered by EU law, absence of a specific rule in EU law does not enable MS (or the Institutions) to act: in the Advice on the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction, the mere indirect effect of the Convention of the 44/2001 Regulation was considered sufficient to make the matter fall «wholly» within EU competence, thus depriving the MS of the power to act.

Alternatively, we consider that an individual may be able to challenge a local authority's decision to use a PSPO to evict rough sleepers or the occupants of an unauthorised encampments by way of judicial review on much the same grounds with the benefit of legal aid and legal representation.

Consider what people other than «conservatives» or Diceyans think of judicial review.