{"title":"Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40，上议院","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, House of Lords. This case considered whether the process by which a Chief Constable was sacked amounted to procedural unfairness and breached the rules of natural justice. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"59 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, House of Lords\",\"authors\":\"T. Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, House of Lords. This case considered whether the process by which a Chief Constable was sacked amounted to procedural unfairness and breached the rules of natural justice. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Essential Cases: Public Law\",\"volume\":\"59 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Essential Cases: Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Essential Cases: Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关键案例:公法在课程教材和关键案例判决之间架起了一座桥梁。本案例文件总结了Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40，上议院的事实和判决。这个案件考虑的是一名警察局长被解雇的过程是否构成程序上的不公平，是否违反了自然正义的规则。该文件还包括作者托马斯·韦伯的支持性评论。
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, House of Lords. This case considered whether the process by which a Chief Constable was sacked amounted to procedural unfairness and breached the rules of natural justice. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
