Sentences with phrase «judicial review of the decision which»

Not exact matches

A judicial review («JR») is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body; they are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the conclusion reached.

The importance of the second and third issues is obvious for decisions about a written constitution, which later was interpreted as involving judicial review of acts of Congress, and for a federal union of states having partial autonomy under a national government.

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.

This completely misses the point of judicial review, which is that it is designed to stop bad decision - making.

Margaret Tulloch of Comprehensive Future, a group which campaigns for equality of opportunity in education, confirmed they were taking advice on the feasibility of a judicial review of the decision in the High Court.

The alliance is hoping for an early decision from the court on whether to allow a judicial review of the case which they hope could take place before the new year.

Last week, Comprehensive Future, which campaigns for equality of opportunity in education, said the group was taking advice on the feasibility of a judicial review of the Weald of Kent decision in the High Court.

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.

When the Commission issues a decision against a given party, such party has at its disposal the complete system of judicial review provided by EU law, which includes the action for annulment at the General Court and the appeal to the CJEU.

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).

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.

A judicial review is a court action in which a judge reviews the decision of a tribunal or other legal decision - maker for serious errors or unfairness.

All those involved in the wind power industry should take note of this decision, which could eventually be submitted to judicial review.

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.

I think this case is of interest to ABlawg readers because it involves the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate - level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision — a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»of interest to ABlawg readers because it involves the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate - level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision — a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate - level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision — a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision — a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»of review applicable to a ministerial decision — a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post «Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny»Of Killer Whales, Sage - grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny».

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».

Under s 38, any judicial review claim against the minister or a member of the inquiry panel, must be brought within 14 days of the day on which the applicant became aware of the decision.

All that remains to be stressed here is that the denial or breach of these entitlements may provide the ground on which a decision can be challenged through the process of judicial review.

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.

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 management and allocation of housing stock by a housing trust which is a registered social landlord under the Housing Act 1996, including decisions concerning the termination of a tenancy, is a function of a public nature, with the effect that the registered social landlord is to regarded as a public authority for the purposes of s 6 (3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and so is amenable to judicial review on conventional public law grounds in respect of its performance of that function.

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.»

In a unanimous decision released Sept 28, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal («ABCA») upheld a judicial review decision which found that the majority of a grievance arbitration panel («Majority Panel») had improperly decided that Suncor's random drug and alcohol testing policy was unenforceable.

Legislative choice to vest decision - making authority in these bodies, allied to their expertise, the complexity of the problems with which they deal and the ability of interested parties to participate in their proceedings justifies a deferential approach to judicial review of their decisions.

He accepted the Council's evidence, some of which — unusually for judicial review proceedings — had been given during cross-examination, that none of its decisions had been taken for an improper political purpose.

In the judicial review, ADGA took the position that the Tribunal's decision must fail because Mr. Lane and the Commission failed to establish or identify a comparator group against which to measure the treatment of Mr. Lane.

The Employer brought an application for the judicial review of the PSLREB's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal (the «FCA»), which unanimously reversed the decision of the PSLREB.

Furthermore, there is always the potential for a judicial review (a kind of appeal) of Vice - Chair's Nyman's decision, which may result in a reversal of the Board's decision.

In October 2017, the Commercial Court dismissed a judicial review application which sought to quash An Bord Pleanala's decision to grant the Apple technology company planning permission for the construction of a data storage centre together with an electricity substation and associated infrastructure on a site near Athenry, County Galway.

The Court did not grapple with the point that the decision in AHK had been overtaken by the enactment of section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 which provides for a closed material procedure in judicial review proceedings (CMP).

Deference is about the way in which a court treats an administrative decision, primarily on judicial review but also in other contexts, where the legitimacy of the decision is in question.

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.

In 2015 the Alberta Court of Appeal issued two decisions which suggested the Court is attempting to curtail the presumption of deference in the judicial review (or statutory appeal) of statutory tribunal decisions in this province: see Edmonton (East) Capilano Shopping Centres Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2015 ABCA 85 (CanLII)(Capilano, ABCA) which I commented on in Where Are We Going on Standard of Review in Alreview (or statutory appeal) of statutory tribunal decisions in this province: see Edmonton (East) Capilano Shopping Centres Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2015 ABCA 85 (CanLII)(Capilano, ABCA) which I commented on in Where Are We Going on Standard of Review in AlReview in Alberta?

He acted for HMRC in Proteus and Samarkand v HMRC -LRB-[2017] EWCA Civ 77), a judicial review challenge to tax decisions taken on film finance schemes; in Eastenders v HMRC [2014] UKSC 34, [2014] 2 WLR 1580 (which concerned the for use of the power to detain goods under section 139 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979); and in European Brand Trading v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 90 (as to the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to determine whether seizure of goods for non-payment of excise duty was lawful).

There may be exceptional cases in which it might be appropriate to apply for judicial review of the secretary of state's decision to recall the prisoner, but they would be few and far between.

Shortly before the consultation date on November 28, 2013, I was advised that the College had received a letter suggesting that an application for judicial review would be made of a ratio review panel decision that I had chaired (which had issued over 6 months ago), on the basis of «a reasonable apprehension of bias».

I want to come back to the issue of judicial review — both of legislation and of administrative decisions — and deference, about which I wrote earlier this week.

We are struggling to reconcile parliamentary sovereignty, which suggests giving effect to legislative attempts to insulate administrative decision - makers from judicial review, and the Rule of Law, which, as Dicey himself suggested, requires courts of justice to apply the law.

The «conservatives» who are skeptical of judicial review of legislation, especially on Charter grounds, rally under «the Diceyan banner» — which is also «a flag of hostility to the administrative state» — and thus don't like courts to defer to the decisions of administrative agencies and tribunals.

A review of the case itself indicates, however, that the Review Board addressed the merits of its own decision, which is unusual on judicial rreview of the case itself indicates, however, that the Review Board addressed the merits of its own decision, which is unusual on judicial rReview Board addressed the merits of its own decision, which is unusual on judicial reviewreview.

R (Boehringer - Ingelheim Ltd) v NHS England (2016, Administrative Court) Resisting an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of NHS England on the circumstances in which an end of life cancer treatment should be used

Judicial Review is the procedure by which decisions of a public body can be challenged in court.

On issues such as the content of the record on judicial review applications, the extent to which administrative decision - makers can participate in judicial reviews of their decisions, superior court review of federal prison decisions and tribunals» capacity to reconsider their decisions, Canadian courts have recently come under pressure to update the procedural law to bring it into line with the substantive law.

In dismissing the appeal against dismissal of an application for judicial review of the Bar Council's decision, the Court examined the relevant ECHR case law, which emphasised adequacy of representation over freedom of choice as to the identity of counsel.

In their brief, the amici assert that the availability of judicial review of agency decisions serves important purposes, by «providing assurance that agencies do not exceed the limits of their statutory authority and treat parties fairly, consistently, and rationally,» particularly in the arena of CAMELS ratings, which «are a cornerstone to bank regulation» and have the potential to have «significant impact» on banks» businesses and activities.

«The CAS decision, which had to determine whether there was any basis for the IOC's refusal to invite Russian athletes, is in some ways, a judicial review of the IOC's method for determining which athletes are able to take part in the competition.

Rix LJ cited with approval a passage in De Smith's Judicial Review (6th edition, 2007, at paras 10 - 065ff) and headed: Policy and Bias, which noted that decision - makers are entitled «to exhibit certain kinds of bias in the exercise of their judgment or discretion on matters of public policy» and while ordinary members of legislative bodies are «entitled, and sometimes expected, to show political bias» they of course ought not to show personal bias or participate in decisions on a matter in which they have a private pecuniary or proprietary interest.

In the event of a decision which does not attract a right of appeal, the only choice is to seek redress to the Administrative Court (High Court) or Upper Tribunal by way of Judicial Review application.

The Supreme Court of Canada will simultaneously hear on December 6 and 7 2011, five copyright cases which are a judicial review of Copyright Board decisions.

We also contain a specialist Planning Court which handles judicial reviews of decisions about planning permission and other challenges to planning decisions.