{"title":"M诉内政部[1994]1 AC 377,上议院(也称为Re M)","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0015","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 M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, House of Lords (also known as Re M). The case considered whether the courts had the power to issue injunctions against government departments and the ministers attached to them, and whether the rule of law required that those departments and ministers could be held in contempt of court for breach of court orders. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, House of Lords (also known as Re M)\",\"authors\":\"T. Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0015\",\"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 M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, House of Lords (also known as Re M). The case considered whether the courts had the power to issue injunctions against government departments and the ministers attached to them, and whether the rule of law required that those departments and ministers could be held in contempt of court for breach of court orders. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Essential Cases: Public Law\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"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/9780191842832.003.0015\",\"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/9780191842832.003.0015","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M诉内政部[1994]1 AC 377,上议院(也称为Re M)一案的事实和判决。该案件考虑了法院是否有权对政府部门及其附属部长发布禁令,以及法律规则是否要求这些部门和部长可以因违反法院命令而被判藐视法庭罪。该文件还包括作者托马斯·韦伯的支持性评论。
M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, House of Lords (also known as Re M)
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, House of Lords (also known as Re M). The case considered whether the courts had the power to issue injunctions against government departments and the ministers attached to them, and whether the rule of law required that those departments and ministers could be held in contempt of court for breach of court orders. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.