Sentences with phrase «judicial review claim by»

Not exact matches

A high court judge said they had «an arguable case for seeking the relief claimed by way of judicial review».

In March 2011, an application for a Judicial Review in the High Court was lodged by two teenagers, Callum Hurley and Katy Moore, who claimed the increase in tuition fees breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

The proposed changes include: applying acts that affect litigation in court to litigation in the CRT, setting time limits for judicial reviews, ensuring that the CRT decisions are enforceable by the courts and establishing the CRT as an expert tribunal for all matters except general small claims and motor vehicle liability issues.

Late last year, the Supreme Court of Canada derided «fashionable» claims by applicants for judicial review that a correctness standard should apply in the review of administrative decisions.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he had also prepared by himself two judicial review claims and in the GMC proceedings itself he had prepared by himself a detailed document in support of the application for a stay.

Our lawyers have acted for architects, engineers, lawyers, dentists, and accountants in professional errors and omissions claims, advised clients before professional regulatory bodies, acted for professional administrative bodies, provided advice regarding investigations conducted by administrative authorities, and have acted in judicial reviews of decisions made by professional regulatory bodies.

This claim for judicial review was brought against the Secretary of State for Health, acting by the Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA).

Holmcroft's application for judicial review arose out of concerns held by Holmcroft that KPMG (as independent reviewer) and Barclays Bank PLC (the bank which sold the IRHPs to Holmcroft) had not given proper consideration to Holmcroft's claim for consequential losses.

Although s 37 of IA 2005 provides immunity from civil claims for inquiry panel members, s 38 implicitly confirms that that immunity does not serve to preclude judicial review claims in respect of decisions made by a member or members of the inquiry panel.

The central issue at the core of the judicial review claim concerned the human defendant's lawyers seeking access to the full first account interviews provided by senior company employees to the company's lawyers, and which were undertaken as part of that investigation.

Most recently, Zac acted for a claimant in a claim for judicial review which argued that guidance issued by the Secretary of State was contrary to the IORP Directive (R (on the application of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (led by Nigel Giffin QC).

Zac has also advised a local authority on various issues related to the amendment of its constitution (led by Anya Proops) and has advised on the merits of a claim for judicial review by a business alleging breach of its rights under A1P1 (led by Amy Rogers).

As a pupil, Zac was also involved in: R (on the application of RWE Generation UK Plc) v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority [2016] 1 CMLR 17, a challenge against a decision modifying the charges imposed on users of the National Grid (as a pupil assisting Gerard Rothschild); Speed Medical Examination Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 3585, a judicial review challenging reforms to the process for handling whiplash claims (as a pupil assisting Gerard Rothschild); and an application for interim relief by a company that had been redesignated under a European Union sanctions regime (as a pupil assisting Maya Lester).

These days the remedies for people who feel that the Home Office has misapplied the law or failed to properly assess their case are far more limited; basically a right to a second pair of Home Office eyes reviewing their application followed by an application for judicial review if their pockets are sufficiently deep to finance their own legal team and face the significant costs that may be sought by government lawyers if their claim fails.

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....»

CrowdJustice has been used by claimants to fundraise for judicial reviews, inquests, employment and environmental claims.

The judicial review claim, by the Fair Crime Contract Alliance, was scheduled for hearing in April, with a trial of at least part of the Part 7 claims scheduled for May.

The first half outlined the series of judicial review claims that have been brought over the last two years to challenge the lawfulness of the cuts to legal aid brought about by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, while the second half examined the effect of human rights in individual cases across different areas of law.

Most recently, Rachel has been appointed to act as Special Advocate for one of the Claimants in judicial review proceedings brought against the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by three Afghan nationals claiming that they worked for the Defendants in Afghanistan as covert human intelligence sources.

Described by Chambers & Partners as «A high - profile team deserving of all its praise», our Actions Against the Police, Civil Liberties and Human Rights team specialises in claims for false imprisonment, assault, malicious prosecution, discrimination, deaths in custody, and the judicial review of decisions taken by public authorities.

A high court judge said they had «an arguable case for seeking the relief claimed by way of judicial review».

Permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review was initially refused by Mr Justice Collins, but was granted on appeal by Sir Henry Brooke.

Responding to Lord Justice Briggs» Civil Courts Structure Review, the ELA said that, while an online court may seem suitable for such claims at first glance, employment claims were «characterised by their complexity» and the «special nature» of the employee - employer relationship needed to be preserved where possible, with judicial power exercised sensitively.

This includes both public law and private law claims, and relates to, amongst other things: challenges by way of judicial review to hospital closures and reconfigurations, availability of specific treatments and drugs, contractual and structural issues in the NHS (especially GPs and dentists), mental health law, medical product liability, cases involving ethical questions such as consent to treatment, and cases relating to confidentiality and patient information.

The court expressed its concerns that allowing such a collateral attack would allow for certain mischief, including allowing a Nation to ignore the judicial review process by stating no concern at the consultation stage, only to later invalidate the approval by claiming Aboriginal title.

Unison challenged the lawfulness of the introduction of the fee regime by way of judicial review in a claim that was heard by the High Court and in which judgment was handed down on 7 February 2014 (Unison 1 [2014] EWHC 218).

When deciding whether to extend time for bringing a claim for judicial review, the court should start by considering to what extent there are good reasons for extending time and, if there is good reason, to what extent relief would be likely to cause hardship, would be prejudicial, or would be detrimental to good administration.

As a result of online e-commerce marketplaces, such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, beginning to enforce design patent rights asserted by design patent holders without the benefit of any type of judicial or administrative review, allegedly infringing products are being taken down from the online marketplace without formally engaging in design patent claim construction.