Sentences with phrase «whether judicial review»

Whether a complaint might be a made or whether judicial review claim might follow can not be a relevant test.

Address to the Joint OFL / ONIWG Conference focuses on major problems in Ontario's system: experience rating; OH&S inspection; role of doctors, objective medical evidence and statistics in legal decisionmaking; actuaries; claims procedures — and whether judicial review, Charter are effective legal remedies.

In cases where disputes have arisen between Canada and First Nations in these areas, the lack of a legislative framework has led some judges to question whether judicial review is even available.

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

Not exact matches

Those earlier tariff cases gave US importers and other interested persons an opportunity to argue whether such added duties are justified and an opportunity to seek judicial review of agency decisions.

At the request of a person directly affected by the exercise of a power, a court may conduct a so - called judicial review to determine whether the exercise of a public power on a given occasion is, or is not, within the limits of the power.

Even if you can afford a judicial review, reforms will make it easier for public bodies to escape a full examination of whether or not they behaved in accordance with law.

He also suggested «severe doubts about whether secondary legislation should be subject to judicial review».

The plaintiff, through his counsel, Ifeanyichukwu Obasi - Nweze, is seeking a judicial review to determine whether or not the Office of Mark had not become vacant by the provisions of Section 68 (1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and Section 3 (3)(a) of the National Institute for Legislative Studies Act, 2011.

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.

The judge said the decision about whether to hold a judicial review should be heard in open court, after privately considering the merits of the application.

Judicial review is arguably the single most important jurisdiction that any court exercises, and many of us welcomed the government's defeat last month when the House of Lords voted to ensure that judges kept their discretion as to whether to hear judicial review procJudicial review is arguably the single most important jurisdiction that any court exercises, and many of us welcomed the government's defeat last month when the House of Lords voted to ensure that judges kept their discretion as to whether to hear judicial review procjudicial review proceedings.

Speaking in Melbourne, Australia on 8 August 2014 he said: «I pass over the interesting point whether the judiciary could override an outrageous statute, such as one which abolished the right of judicial review.»

Sir George Newman granted judicial review of the changes to the HSMP criteria, holding that the question of whether or not the secretary of state was bound by earlier representations required a «contextual rather than a textual analysis» of the original terms of the programme.

The Santos claim is the only issued application for judicial review on the issue of whether the...

Judicial review is concerned with whether these bodies have properly acted within their jurisdiction and thus each case will require a detailed analysis of the governing statute and the action purportedly taken under it.

More specifically, the question is whether the Due Process Clause requires judicial review of the amount of punitive damages awards.

1 page 270, para190) Lord Gill states «the outcome of Lord Justice Jackson's review and whether, in the light of his recommendations, the rule that expenses follow success may require to be modified in this jurisdiction, are matters that should urgently be addressed by the Working Group on Judicial Expenses».

In 1797, one of the arguments considered whether the Constitution provided for judicial review.

We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1068 (1994), to consider whether Oregon's limited judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards is consistent with our decision in Has lip.

The respondents asserted (as characterized by the court) that «the proper function of judicial review is to determine whether the decision itself was reasonable and whether the decision makers had the jurisdiction to make the decision.

[56] Thus, «On judicial review, the question becomes whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter protections at play.»

Respecting the issue of infringement, however, the Federal Court concluded «that judicial review is not the appropriate course of action to determine whether Treaty No. 8 rights have been infringed.»

(Judicial review; whether a disciplinary or regulatory decision to prosecute engages Article 8 (1) of the ECHR where the accused has been prosecuted by a previous regulator).

I am not convinced it is entirely unreasonable to consider whether there could be legal reforms permitting the Commission to have some role in serving respondents in applications for judicial review.

Whether or not someone has legal training, judicial review can be a nebulous avenue to pursue.

Indeed, more generally for AG Bot, the standard of judicial review in determining the legality of a «legislative» act was that of determining whether there was a manifest error (a theme which also underpins AG Bot's Opinion in Kadi II).

They decide whether or not to formally present applications for judicial review.

Effectively, applicants are thus not entitled to rely on the provision directly, but to judicial review which verifies whether this discretion has been used within the limits the Directive prescribes (para 25).

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.

Although Markman assigned claim construction to the trial judge, it did not expressly state whether factual findings subsumed in that issue are subject to de novo review (as normally would be the case for legal rulings) or to review for «clear error» (as normally would apply to judicial fact findings).

Judicial review of injury to dignity awards is not to be approached in the same manner as a quantum appeal in a personal injury case, where the Courts consider whether the award «was a wholly erroneous estimate of the loss by comparison to the range established by the cases».

One is to apply deferential standards of review, whether on appeal or judicial review.

The issue was whether the judiciary could address the constitutionality of laws put under the Ninth Schedule of the constitution, holding that they can not be granted blanket immunity from judicial review.

It can not matter, he said, whether the taxpayer seeks relief by judicial review or pursuant to a statutory challenge.

The judicial review proceedings were concluded by consent in June 2016 leaving the only issue for determination by the court of whether costs should be paid by the Scottish authorities on the «standard» or «indemnity» basis.

In dealing with the claimant's further request for an order that anyone who had read the privileged documents or was aware of their content should be removed from further involvement in the relevant FSA investigation, the judge held that, while the approach identified in the private law context to the question whether a lawyer in possession of privileged material should be restrained from acting is a useful guide, when the question arises in judicial review proceedings there will necessarily be a public law element in the underlying dispute.

Ryder LJ began that the issue concerned whether the availability of a remedy by way of judicial review ousted the ET's jurisdiction under s120 of the Equality Act.

On 6 March 2013, Mr Justice Hickinbottom gave judgment in the application for judicial review by a number of Claimants into whether or not the Government has correctly transposed the EC Waste Framework Directive (2008 / 98 / EC) into domestic law...

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.»

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 Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of whether a privative clause that on its face purports to insulate all aspects of an administrative decision from judicial review does, in fact, oust the jurisdiction of the court.

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

In the Court of Queen's Bench, the reviewing judge acknowledged that it was troubling that the Appeal Committee allowed an appeal to be heard by an even number of members, but said that the role of the court on judicial review was to determine whether the process was unfair, not whether it was «distasteful».

On an appeal from a decision disposing of an application for judicial review, the appellate court must decide whether the court below identified the appropriate standard of review and applied it correctly.

In light of the number and range of challenges reflected in these Comments, it might be asked whether any regulatory decision today will escape judicial review or procedural challenges.

65 ILCS 5 / 11-13-25 Any special use, variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance adopted by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule or non-home rule, shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the process of its adoption is considered administrative for other purposes.

A judicial review is a request to the BC Supreme Court to evaluate the decision made by the tribunal and decide whether or not it was unreasonable or unfair.

He noted that the Lord Chancellor had «lost six judicial review cases in 2014 and there are a further seven, strong cases in the pipe line», and asked whether this had any bearing on his current attack on judicial review.

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.