Common Law World Review最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Ultimate beneficial holders of offshore bonds are contingent creditors for winding up proceedings 离岸债券的最终受益人是清盘程序中的或有债权人

Common Law World Review Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI: 10.1177/14737795241255956

Peter Burgess

引用次数: 0

Conditional quashing orders: A missed opportunity for introducing a new relief in judicial review proceedings? 有条件撤销令：错失在司法审查程序中引入新救济的机会？

Common Law World Review Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI: 10.1177/14737795231225478

Kane Abry

{"title":"Conditional quashing orders: A missed opportunity for introducing a new relief in judicial review proceedings?","authors":"Kane Abry","doi":"10.1177/14737795231225478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795231225478","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the opportunity for the introduction of a new type of relief in judicial review proceedings called conditional quashing orders (CQOs) to mitigate the effect of quashing orders on the timeline and costs of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). The article explores the benefits and disbenefits of their introduction as a new standard relief and as a court case management power as two possible alternatives. In so doing, the article examines how CQOs could operate and attempts to draw clear parameters for them to achieve their aim of introducing more judicial flexibility in judicial review proceedings. In framing the debate and attempting to build a theoretical framework for CQOs to function, this article considers developments in other jurisdictions, notably Kenya, to inform the discussion while engaging critically with the interaction of CQOs in both alternatives with the current legislative framework. Altogether, the article defends a thesis whereby while CQOs have obvious advantages offering more possibilities for judicial flexibility and mitigation of the effect of quashing orders (which are disruptive to the timeline and cost of NSIPs), they carry overwhelming inconveniences. These, in turn, do not warrant their introduction into legislation. However, the article demonstrates that the aims underpinning CQOs remain useful as they call for a complete rethink of judicial review proceedings in England and Wales to ensure a better balance of justice or convenience by reinforcing fairness, flexibility, and judicial restraint and cooperation in the determination of cases. In fine, the article makes several proposals to achieve this and transform the current judicial review blueprint, thus providing food for thought for reforming the system and emphasising proportionality.","PeriodicalId":503179,"journal":{"name":"Common Law World Review","volume":"56 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139442158","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