Sentences with phrase «judicial review of the decision not»

The claimant, who was the deceased's sister, applied for judicial review of the decision not to leave unlawful killing as a possible verdict for the jury's consideration.

The claimant brought proceedings seeking judicial review of the decision not to prosecute any individual police officer for murder or gross negligent manslaughter.

Similarly, Art 2 did not require a change in the established position regarding judicial review of a decision not to prosecute.

Not exact matches

Section 54 of NEBA provides that the cabinet decision is amenable to judicial review (not the appeal with leave mechanism):

We also oppose provisions of the bill that expand the immigration detention system and erode the basic rights afforded to immigrants, including the provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of individuals who can not be deported to their home countries; that expedite removal proceedings or automatically imprison immigrants without providing them access to attorneys or judges; that increase detention capacity by an additional 20,000 beds to house immigrants awaiting their day in court; and that diminish the checks and balances of judicial review over immigration decisions.

The ACCC had 28 days in which to apply for judicial review of the decision, but such a review would not test the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has decided that it will not apply for judicial review of the decision by the Australian Competition Tribunal to grant conditional authorisation to AGL Energy Limited's (AGL) proposed acquisition of Macquarie Generation.

The ACCC has announced it will not apply for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to grant conditional authorisation for AGL's proposed acquisition of Macquarie generation.

An appeal on the merits is not available for Tribunal merger authorisation decisions, but the ACCC is seeking judicial review, alleging three reviewable errors, including that the Tribunal erred in its reasoning that «it could only conclude that the proposed acquisition was likely to result in a detriment if the Tribunal concluded that there would be a substantial lessening of competition».

Ms Smith constantly gave way to MPs on various aspects of the bill, including compensation for those who are not charged after being held for 28 days, the definition of what constitutes «grave and exceptional» circumstances and why she has avoided judicial review of the decision.

The commission told the Good Law Project that its fresh investigation was «commenced after internal consideration of the papers while responding to a judicial review initiated by the Good Law Project of the decision not to investigate following the original assessments».

The Humanist Society Scotland (HSS) is seeking a judicial review of the Scottish government's decision to not allow young people to opt - out and claims that it may have acted unlawfully.

The Department for Education (DfE) has said it disagrees with «some aspects» of the court's decision last month to rule against education secretary Nicky Morgan in a judicial review brought by six parents, but has not said which.

Whilst the CAC's decision can not be appealed (though it could be challenged by way of judicial review in the High Court), the legal battle on the «gig economy» riders» status is far from over.

The lesson of all three cases is that the courts do not accept that the funding of litigation is a matter for Parliament alone and the judicial review procedure will usually be the mechanism for challenging government decisions in this field, although Coventry is not a judicial review case.

We are now one of a group of test cases linked for judicial review proceedings — challenging not only particular decisions on ECF but the operation of the scheme as a whole.

In addition to these administrative mechanisms, a patient may turn to the courts for judicial review of either the substantive decision (i.e. the decision to cover (or not) a particular medical service) or the process used to make that decision.

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.

[74] The decision of the review officer or panel is subject to judicial review, but not to appeal.

How the implied term would apply on the facts is another matter, but rationale behind the ban on using the implied term in the course of judicial review proceedings to determine the fairness of the decision to dismiss is not obvious or supported by any authority.

He therefore concludes that the OMT programme can be reviewed in this preliminary ruling, also because «the alternative — namely declaring an act such as the OMT programme not actionable — would entail the risk of excluding a significant number of decisions of the ECB from all judicial review merely on the ground that they have not been formally adopted and published in the Official Journal» (at 89).

However, if the decision to dismiss is prima facie amenable to judicial review, the conclusion of Court of Appeal that proceedings in the ET would not be as effective for Shoesmith may be harder to challenge.

That is to say, the focus of the litigation was on the authorizing decision and not the resulting legislation and so judicial review was confined in its scope to an analysis of the legality of the authorizing decision.

Two questions arose: (i) whether s 204 contained an express requirement under which the county court was required by an enactment to make a decision applying the principles that were applied by the court on an application for judicial review, thus placing s 204 appeals within the public law category; and (ii) if not, whether there were any other reasons requiring the application of judicial review principles with the result that s 204 appeals fell within the post-LASPO 2012 civil legal aid regime.

The Court of Appeal held — on a more or less technical judicial review basis — that the decision not to call J was within the local authority's discretion and could not be set aside by judicial review.

Again, Anisminic is sometimes taken as authority for the proposition that unlawful administrative decisions are nullities, that they never existed in the eyes of the law, with the corollary that judges should not have any discretion to refuse judicial review remedies.

In reaching this decision, the High Court undertook a review of past Singapore case law and legal commentary on the nature and purpose of Article 34 (2)(a)(iii), ultimately deciding that «as a matter of policy, to hold that Art 34 (2)(a)(iii) does not apply, where no other limb under Art 34 (2) would be engaged, would allow an arbitral tribunal to immunize its awards against judicial scrutiny by delivering its conclusions on both jurisdiction and merits in a single award», which would have been an «unsatisfactory result».

In the first action, the Law Society brought a claim seeking judicial review of the decision of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to seek offers from firms of solicitors and not - for - profit organisations on the basis of the new unified contract.

On judicial review, courts are reluctant to second guess the decision not to grant an adjournment, as the discretion to permit or deny an adjournment «falls squarely within the discretion» of the adjudicator: Senjule v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 ONSC 2817.

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.

(3) An application for judicial review and any appeal from an order of the court on the application does not stay the decision made under this Act.

These findings on standard of review are not only consistent with the overall trend in existing jurisprudence concerning the judicial review of FOIP decisions, but are also consistent with the trend towards reasonableness as the standard of review generally in substantive judicial review of statutory interpretation by administrative decision - makers.

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.

First of all, the Court was not convinced by the Opinion of the Advocate General (AG) Jääskinen, who proposed that the judicial review of all decisions by the Petitions Committee must be precluded under Article 263 TFEU in so far as those decisions are not challengeable acts within the meaning of that Article.

For those reasons at least, the creation of the focal point and the Office of the Ombudsperson can not be equated with the provision of an effective judicial procedure for review of decisions of the Sanctions Committee -LSB-...].»

Simplified, one could conclude that while the negative decision as regards the petition's admissibility is subject to full judicial review of the EU judge, any subsequent decision in regard of a positive petition can not be challenged before the EU courts, regardless of how the Parliament addresses the petition.

A New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench judge who took months, sometimes years, to render decisions will not be disciplined following a review by the Canadian Judicial Council.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled that a private school's decision to expel a student is not subject to judicial review.

The privative clause in this case did not preclude judicial review of the decision, which the Court of Appeal found exceeded the Appeal Committee's jurisdiction in any event.

The university did not allow the students to appeal the decision to the Board of Governors Discipline Appeal Committee, thereby preventing them from exhausting all internal remedies before seeking judicial review.

Congressional action does not substitute for judicial review of the Attorney General's decisions.

While a tribunal's substantive decision - making under its home statute may survive a judicial review merely by being reasonable, a tribunal must still be correct about questions of general law, and must still reach decisions on a foundation of procedural fairness; legislatures do not authorize tribunals to decide matters through unjust processes (Dunsmuir at 128 - 129).

Judge De Palma presented a motion to retract the Superior Court decision based on several grounds, claiming that she was not notified of the judicial review application.

If we had not petitioned the court for a judicial review of the adjudicator's decision, our client would be stuck with a knowing that one of our key arguments had not even been taken into consideration

It is therefore not surprising that the school board applied to the Divisional Court for judicial review of the HRTO's decision, and in particular, the reinstatement order.

In Cuozzo, Justice Breyer noted that appeals may be available when PTAB decisions fail to comport with due process, when the decision goes beyond the «statutory» limits of the AIA, such as when the review is premised on a violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (which is not a ground for invalidity available in IPR proceedings), or other judicial «shenanigans.»

Any action seeking the judicial review of such a decision shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date of the decision.

Victoria is not afraid to challenge a decision be it by way of appeal, judicial review or stating of a case.

However, one may question whether the EFTA Court is not going very far here in reviewing the appropriateness of domestic judicial decisions in a field where EEA law expressly gives discretion to EEA EFTA States — in deliberate contrast to the constraints imposed on EU Member States under the preliminary reference procedure.