In the latest instalment of the Baby P cases, the secretary of state and Haringey have filed applications for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in R (on the application of Sharon Shoesmith) v Ofsted & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] All ER (D) 293 (May) allowing Ms Shoesmith's claims for
judicial review of decisions relating to her summary dismissal.
Not exact matches
The
decision is important for examining the level
of deference by the judiciary in applying
judicial review where matters extend into public policy
relating to the precautionary principle in environmental law.
The Cambie Malone's
decision related to two appeals by the Cambie Malone's corporation
of two separate
judicial review decisions made in March and April 2015.
R (Arab Republic
of Egypt) v The Treasury Acting, led by Paul McGrath QC and Tim Eicke QC, for the Arab Republic
of Egypt in its
judicial review of the Treasury's
decision to withhold information
relating to assets frozen in relation to a European Regulation.
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bodnar, the employer sought
judicial review of a
decision of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (Board) in which the Board held that the inclusion
of disability -
related absences and absences taken for the purposes
of family caregiver leave in an attendance management policy was discriminatory.
An RCMP officer filed a
judicial review application
of an internal
decision related to a harassment complaint and denial
of a promotion.
501 «Reasonableness Transformed (in Canada)» [2008] 13 J.R. 214 «Complicating Simplicity: the «Court First Seised» and «
Related Actions» in Article 28» [2008] 27 C.J.Q. 454 «Monkeying Around with Free Speech» (2008) 124 L.Q.R. 560 «
Judicial Review — Ten Years On» [2008] 13 J.R. 214 «Clarifying Immateriality» [2008] 13 J.R. 111 «
Of Coups and Compensation Claims: Mbasogo Reassessed» [2008] 19 King's L.J. 176 «Independent and Impartial Tribunals: Another One Bites the Dust» [2008] 13 J.R. 46 «Proportionality, the Decision - Maker and the House of Lords» [2007] 12 J.R. 221 «Au Revoir to Renvoi?&raqu
Of Coups and Compensation Claims: Mbasogo Reassessed» [2008] 19 King's L.J. 176 «Independent and Impartial Tribunals: Another One Bites the Dust» [2008] 13 J.R. 46 «Proportionality, the
Decision - Maker and the House
of Lords» [2007] 12 J.R. 221 «Au Revoir to Renvoi?&raqu
of Lords» [2007] 12 J.R. 221 «Au Revoir to Renvoi?»
Each level
of people's court should establish a centralized administrative platform for the
judicial review of arbitration awards, to strengthen the informatized management and data analysis
of cases regarding applications to confirm the validity
of an arbitation agreement, cases regarding applications to cancel or enforce arbitration awards
of our domestic arbitration institutions, applications to recognize and enforce Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, Taiwan Region arbitration awards, cases regarding applications to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, and cases
relating to the
judicial review of arbitration such as refusal to accept, reject the filing, or objection to jurisdiction and others
relating to the confirmation
of the validity
of an arbitration agreement; the effective guarantee
of the correct application
of law and
of a unified yardstick for
judicial decision - making.
York submits that a student has a right
of judicial review with respect to procedural matters, but the court should not be asked to interfere with a university's
decisions or judgments
relating to academic matters.
The court did claim jurisdiction
related to 4.6, 4.6.1, and 4.9.5, and noted that the broad language used under s. 14 meant that such applications were not a
judicial review of the PCC's
decision, but a de novo hearing altogether.
The ECJ decided that because arbitration tribunals set up through investor - state dispute settlement are not part
of the EU
judicial system, because such tribunals may resolve disputes that
relate to the application or interpretation
of EU law, and because the awards
of the tribunal are not subject to
review by member state courts, the
decisions of these tribunals are not compatible with EU law.
Judicial Review applications — typically challenges to
decisions by Councils and other government
related bodies — now have to be made within 3 months
of the
decision challenged and there is a need to get the Court's permission to proceed.
Most first instance
judicial reviews of visa -
related decisions of the Migration
Review Tribunal, Refugee
Review Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Also, see Section 13 (b), Power to Take Disciplinary Action; Section 19 (c), Appeals from the
Decision of the Grievance Committee
Related to an Ethics Complaint; Section 42 (c), Appeals from the
Decision of Grievance Committee
Related to a Request for Arbitration; Section 20 (c) and (d), Initiating an Ethics Hearing; Section 23, Action
of the Board
of Directors; Sections 24 and 49, Initial Action by Directors; Sections 25 and 50, Preliminary
Judicial Determination Prior to Imposition
of Discipline; Section 45, Board's Right to Decline Arbitration; Section 47 (c), Manner
of Invoking Arbitration; Section 55, Request for Procedural
Review by Directors;
Also, see Section 13 (b), Power to Take Disciplinary Action; Section 19 (c), Appeals from the
Decision of the Grievance Committee
Related to an Ethics Complaint; Section 42 (c), Appeals from the
Decision of Grievance Committee
Related to a Request for Arbitration; Section 20 (c) and (d), Initiating an Ethics Hearing; Section 23, Action
of the Board
of Directors; Sections 24 and 49, Initial Action by Directors; Sections 25 and 50, Preliminary
Judicial Determination Prior to Imposition
of Discipline; Section 45, Board's Right to Decline Arbitration; Section 47 (c), Manner
of Invoking Arbitration; Section 55, Request for Procedural
Review by Directors; Part Fourteen, State Association Professional Standards Committee, Composition
of Hearing Panels and Appellate or
Review Panels.