发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Essential Cases: Public Law最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) 总检察长诉Jonathan Cape有限公司[1976]高等法院(皇后审判庭)qb752
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0004
T. Webb
{"title":"Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Lawx provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerns the constitutional convention of collective Cabinet responsibility which requires, inter alia, that Cabinet discussions remain secret, whether the publication of a diary detailing Cabinet discussions breached the convention, and what the constitutional consequences of any breach were. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"231 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116911669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
R v Gough [1993] AC 646, House of Lords R v Gough [1993] AC 646，英国上议院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0023
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Gough [1993] AC 646, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Gough [1993] AC 646, House of Lords. This case detailed the old test for bias, since replaced by the test in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67. There is discussion as to the respective benefits and drawbacks of each test. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128861883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords Anisminic Ltd诉外国赔偿委员会[1969]2 AC 147，上议院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0002
T. Webb
{"title":"Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125298197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 裁判官诉赛马会纪律委员会，当事一方阿迦汗[1993]1 WLR 909，上诉法院(民事分庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0022
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case considered under what circumstances a decision-maker could be considered public, or to be exercising a public law function, for the purposes of determining whether that decision-maker was subject to judicial review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132202449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court R(关于Chester的申请)诉司法国务秘书[2013]UKSC 63，最高法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0034
T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0034","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court. This case addressed a further challenge to the rules against prisoner voting (see Hirst), and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Here the court was sceptical of the value of making a further declaration of incompatibility in an area where such declarations had already been made. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129391286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) R诉收购及合并事务委员会，单方面Datafin plc [1987] qb815，上诉法院(民事分庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0027
T. Webb
{"title":"R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case examines the characteristics of bodies which can be subject to judicial review, exploring whether bodies which are ostensibly private in nature can be subject to judicial review if the nature or consequences of their functions and decisions are public. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132316793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Jackson v HM Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, House of Lords 杰克逊诉总检察长案[2005]UKHL 56，上议院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0014
T. Webb
{"title":"Jackson v HM Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Jackson v HM Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the interpretation of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and the implications of this interpretation for the relationship between the Houses of Parliament. The case also contained important obiter from the House of Lords on the nature of parliamentary sovereignty. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123848806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 国会诉内政部[1976]QB 629，上诉法院(民事分庭)
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0009
T. Webb
{"title":"Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629, Court of Appeal (Civil Division)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629, Court of Appeal (Civil Division). This case provides an example of illegality in the context of judicial review and also discusses the concept of parliamentary intention, and theoretical models for justifying particular interpretations of it. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125752933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights 史密斯和格雷迪诉英国[1999]ECHR 72，欧洲人权法院
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0043
T. Webb
{"title":"Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0043","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights. This case examined the now-defunct provisions against homosexuality in the British military, and how using either unreasonableness or proportionality produced different outcomes. It also considers the contribution which a rights-based approach to legal questions, drawing on proportionality, can make to the development of law and policy. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114562649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords
Essential Cases: Public Law Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI: 10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0019
T. Webb
{"title":"Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123226999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：604180095
Book学术官方微信