Sentences with phrase «taking on judicial review»

Not exact matches

A hearing to determine whether a judicial review will be granted is due to take place on 20th September.

Take the ETS case of R (on the application of Bilal Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, where the president laid out all the awful things he could do to those who had not shown full candour in their judicial review.

«We await the results of the judicial review with interest, but whatever way it goes there will probably be legal challenges either from the side of the communities and organisations who took the review or on behalf of HS2 if it doesn't go their way.

Since taking over from the rather more liberal, Kenneth Clarke Grayling has attacked human rights as «political correctness», proposed dramatic restrictions to the right of individuals to challenge the state through judicial review, imposed significant restrictions on access to lawyers with no - win no - fee cases, moved the government back on to the course of building more (and bigger) prisons — despite the evidence against them — and is set on dramatically privatising up to 70 % of the probation service ceding state responsibility for offenders to commercial enterprises.

They certainly weren't essential to the success of the campaign, which instead relied on the hard work of a small but dedicated group and a Judicial Review made possible by legal aid and Leigh Day and Co. solicitors (currently taking on Hunt himself in Lewisham).

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.

At the centre of this appeal is the approach to be taken by a court to judicial review of such decisions, both on procedural and substantive grounds.

To be honest, I had no experience in bringing a Judicial Review prior to taking this on, let alone Supreme Court practice and procedure!

In its judgment the court said the existence of the right of appeal given by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 20 and the right to receive interest on arrears in prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSA.

The client then took the matter to the High Court on judicial review.

The Supreme Judicial Court took the matter on direct appellate review and affirmed.

He has taken on major inquiries, appearing for Ryanair's challenge to the construction of Terminal 2 at Dublin Airport, the Mahon Tribunal, the Blood Tribunal and is acting now on behalf of Ryanair in judicial review proceedings in relation to the new Northern Runway Development.

On the other hand, the Court found that if the Parliament finds the petition admissible, further actions taken are not amenable to judicial review, because the Parliament has a broad discretion of political nature as to how the petition is further dealt with, «regardless» of whether the Parliament deals with the petition directly or further refers it to other competent authorities.

The Law Society is currently taking advice on whether it can bring a judicial review against the government's proposals.

This takes us to the essence of Justice Stratas» reasoning here which is that in legal proceedings (judicial reviews in particular) under our Westminister system of government, an attorney general enjoys a presumptive right to intervene on the basis that public rights are vested in the Crown and an attorney general enforces those rights and represents the public interest: «Giving Attorneys General a broader right to apply to intervene in order to advance the public interest — as Rule 110 (c) does — is consistent with these foundational principles and constitutional arrangements.

Since the first judicial opinion endorsing the use of Technology Assisted Review (or TAR) was written by Judge Andrew J. Peck in 2012, an entire legal industry has grown up on the premise of streamlining the document review process in discovery — that is, taking a repetitive task traditionally performed entirely by attorneys and introducing the concept of computer assistance to increase efficiency and improve consisReview (or TAR) was written by Judge Andrew J. Peck in 2012, an entire legal industry has grown up on the premise of streamlining the document review process in discovery — that is, taking a repetitive task traditionally performed entirely by attorneys and introducing the concept of computer assistance to increase efficiency and improve consisreview process in discovery — that is, taking a repetitive task traditionally performed entirely by attorneys and introducing the concept of computer assistance to increase efficiency and improve consistency.

On 28 July 2011, the Competition Appeal Tribunal («CAT») gave judgment on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition of a minority shareholding in Aer Lingus Group plc («Aer Lingus»On 28 July 2011, the Competition Appeal Tribunal («CAT») gave judgment on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition of a minority shareholding in Aer Lingus Group plc («Aer Lingus»on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition of a minority shareholding in Aer Lingus Group plc («Aer Lingus»).

On 28 July 2011, the Competition Appeal Tribunal («CAT») gave judgment on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition -LSB-..On 28 July 2011, the Competition Appeal Tribunal («CAT») gave judgment on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition -LSB-..on the application by Ryanair Holdings plc («Ryanair») for judicial review of the decision by the Office of Fair Trading («OFT») that it would be in time (should it decide to take such a decision) to refer to the Competition Commission («CC») Ryanair's acquisition -LSB-...]

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).

Our examination of restrictions on remedies takes account of new limitations introduced following recent government consultations on judicial review that were animated by concerns about the volume of judicial review challenges being brought and the abuse of judicial review for political ends.

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.

Indeed, it is arguably even possible to sympathize with the libertarian position on judicial review and yet argue that in some types of cases, courts should be more deferential than in others; or at least I have taken this position, though perhaps I'm just a faint - hearted libertarian.

1) the Court argument is different: it goes «If the Treaty has a rule on whether a matter is subjuct to judicial review or not, you can't take the issue outside the Treaty» - it stems from EU being not a mere Intl org (where your argument would apply) and it is more like a constitutional limitation (i.e. To modify the rule you have to change the Trety, you can't do that with an intl agreement).

To take a statutory provision that says «no judicial review» to mean «deferential judicial review» is not to accede to the legislature's desires, but to impose one's own principles — including the principle of the Rule of Law — on it.

Charles acts in judicial review claims and advisory work both for and against public bodies in areas such as immigration, prisons, hospitals, mental health and community care, and was on the Attorney General's A Panel for 5 years before taking silk.

Brendan has regularly advised insurers on whether the FSO has correctly taken jurisdiction over complaints against financial services providers, dealing also with limitation issues and claims for judicial review.

Comments Off on Foreclosure Defense Needs a Courtroom: Movement to Take Judicial Review From Foreclosure Process Means The Florida Home Owner Would Lose Right to Fight Foreclosure Before a Judge Tags: Bank of America Foreclosures, BofA Foreclosures, Broward Real Estate, Florida Real Estate, Foreclosure defense attorney, foreclosure defenses, Foreclosure Settlement, House foreclosure, Mortgage foreclosure, Property foreclosure, Underwater Mortgage