000			11280cam a2200397 i 4500
005			20221102163819.0
008			120711s2012 enkk bf 001 0 eng d
011			_aBIB MATCHES WORLDCAT
020			_a1849461597 _qhbk.
020			_a9781849461597 _qhbk.
035			_a(ATU)b12981527
035			_a(OCoLC)801606619
040			_aUKMGB _beng _erda _cUKMGB _dOCLCO _dCDX _dYDXCP _dBWK _dYNK _dUV0 _dBWX _dOCoLC _dATU
043			_ae-uk---
050		4	_aKD4902 _b.F67 2012
082	0	4	_a347.42012 _223
100	1		_aFordham, Michael, _eauthor. _91074092
245	1	0	_aJudicial review handbook / _cMichael Fordham ; foreword by Lord Woolf.
250			_aSixth edition.
264		1	_aOxford ; _aPortland, OR : _bHart Pub., _c2012.
300			_axx, 869 pages : _bforms ; _c25 cm
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
500			_aPrevious ed.: 2008.
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
505	0	0	_aMachine generated contents note: _gA. _tNATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: keys to understanding what the Court is doing -- _gP1. _tconstitutional guarantee. Judicial review is the rule of law in action: a fundamental and inalienable constitutional protection -- _g1.1. _tConstitutional supervision of public authorities -- _g1.2. _tJudicial review and the rule of law -- _g1.3. _tJudicial review's constitutional inalienability -- _gP2. _tSupervisory jurisdiction. Judicial review is a well-established supervisory role by the Court over public bodies -- _g2.1. _tsupervisory jurisdiction -- _g2.2. _tImportance and range of subject-matter -- _g2.3. _tJudicial review in other Courts and Tribunals -- _g2.4. _tAdministrative Court in action: some special features -- _g2.5. _tProcedural discipline and firm case-management -- _g2.6. _tBasic steps in a judicial review case -- _gP3. _tImpact. A successful claim does not necessarily guarantee a favourable ultimate outcome, nor a wider knock-on effect -- _g3.1. _tRemittal and repeatability -- _g3.2. _tHollow/counterproductive victories -- _g3.3. _tJudicial review as a monetary springboard -- _g3.4. _tSecuring assurances/provoking comment -- _g3.5. _tWider impact/knock-on effect -- _gP4. _tMateriality. A claim may fail if lacking substance, as where non-material, non-prejudicial, futile, academic or premature -- _g4.1. _tPractical substance and judicial review -- _g4.2. _tMateriality/material flaw -- _g4.3. _tLack of prejudice -- _g4.4. _tFutility -- _g4.5. _tDangers of materiality, prejudice and futility -- _g4.6. _tHypothetical/academic issues: utility -- _g4.7. _tPrematurity -- _gP5. _tTargets. A wide range of measures, acts, decisions, policies and omissions can be the subject of a judicial review challenge -- _g5.1. _tJudicial review and "decisions" -- _g5.2. _tSpectrum of possible targets -- _g5.3. _tMultiple targets/target-selection -- _gP6. _tPower sources. Public bodies' powers and duties can arise under or by reference to EU and domestic legislation, common law or prerogative, policy guidance or international law -- _g6.1. _tPowers/duties: basic sources -- _g6.2. _tPolicy guidance -- _g6.3. _tInternational law -- _gP7. _tConstitutional fundamentals. Core common law principles can constitute fundamentals of the UK's unwritten constitution -- _g7.1. _tLegislative supremacy -- _g7.2. _tRule of law/separation of powers -- _g7.3. _tAccess to justice -- _g7.4. _tConstitutional/common law rights/duties -- _g7.5. _tBasic fairness/natural justice -- _g7.6. _tBasic reasonableness -- _gP8. _tEU law. Domestic statutes, rules and decisions must be compatible with applicable EU legislation and legal principle -- _g8.1. _tEU law supremacy -- _g8.2. _tEU Treaty rights -- _g8.3. _tJudicial review for EU-incompatibility -- _g8.4. _tReference to the CJEU -- _g8.5. _tEU law damages/reparation -- _g8.6. _tEU Charter of Fundamental Rights -- _gP9. _tHRA. Domestic legislation must be read, and public authorities must act, compatibly with HRA:ECHR rights -- _g9.1. _tHRA: key features and themes -- _g9.2. _tCodified Convention rights -- _g9.3. _tHRA s.2: relationship with Strasbourg -- _g9.4. _tHRA s.3: compatible interpretation -- _g9.5. _tHRA s.6: compatible public authority action -- _g9.6. _tHRA just satisfaction -- _gP10. _tCooperation & candour. The Court will expect from all parties cooperative behaviour and candid disclosure -- _g10.1. _tcooperative enterprise -- _g10.2. _tADR/mediation -- _g10.3. _tClaimant's duty of candour -- _g10.4. _tDefendant/interested party's duty of candour -- _gP11. _tPrecedent & authority. Judicial precedent can bind or guide the court; academic and comparative analysis may be persuasive -- _g11.1. _tUse of case-law -- _g11.2. _tAcademic commentary/comparative case-law -- _gP12. _tReviewing primary legislation. Courts have restricted functions of assessing legal compatibility of Acts of Parliament -- _g12.1. _tPrimary legislation: disapplication under EU law -- _g12.2. _tHRA s.4: declaration of incompatibility -- _g12.3. _tJudicial review of primary legislation at common law -- _gP13. _tRestraint. Courts adopt a primary self-restraint, preserving for public bodies a latitude for judgment and discretion -- _g13.1. _t"Soft" review: reasonableness -- _g13.2. _tRestraint and factual questions -- _g13.3. _tRestraint and discretion/judgment -- _g13.4. _tRestraint and expertise -- _g13.5. _tJudicial restraint in action -- _g13.6. _tProtecting public authorities -- _g13.7. _tReview from the decision-maker's point of view -- _gP14. _tBalancing. Judicial review principles are a careful evolving equilibrium serving the dual imperatives of vigilance and restraint -- _g14.1. _tJudicial review and striking a balance -- _g14.2. _tStriking a balance: grounds for judicial review -- _g14.3. _tStriking a balance: nothing personal -- _g14.4. _tConvenience and floodgates -- _gP15. _tforbidden method. Judges will not intervene as if matters for the public body's judgment were for the Court's judgment -- _g15.1. _t"Soft" review: the forbidden substitutionary approach -- _g15.2. _t"Not an appeal" -- _g15.3. _t"Legality not correctness" -- _g15.4. _t"Not the merits" -- _g15.5. _t"Court does not substitute its own judgment" -- _gP16. _tHard-edged questions. There are certain matters which the Court considers afresh for itself, imposing its own judgment -- _g16.1. _tHard-edged review: correctness -- _g16.2. _tPrecedent fact -- _g16.3. _tError of law as hard-edged review -- _g16.4. _tInterpretation as a hard-edged question -- _g16.5. _tProcedural fairness as hard-edged review -- _g16.6. _tHard-edged review: further matters -- _gP17. _tEvidence and fact. Judicial review is generally conducted on written evidence and regarded as an unsuitable forum for resolving factual disputes, though this can be appropriate and necessary -- _g17.1. _tJudicial review evidence -- _g17.2. _tFresh evidence in judicial review -- _g17.3. _tJudicial review and factual disputes -- _g17.4. _tDisclosure, further information and cross-examination -- _gP18. _tCosts. Generally, the loser must pay the winner's costs -- _g18.1. _tCosts: general matters -- _g18.2. _tCosts and the permission stage -- _g18.3. _tCosts and the public interest -- _g18.4. _tCosts and discontinuance/early disposal -- _g18.5. _tSpecial costs responses -- _gP19. _tMaking the claim. Where pre-claim correspondence fails, claims are to be made and acknowledged in the prescribed way -- _g19.1. _tPre-claim steps -- _g19.2. _tMaking the claim -- _g19.3. _tAcknowledging the claim -- _gP20. _tInterim remedies. The Court can make orders securing a particular state of affairs pending final resolution of the claim -- _g20.1. _tInterim remedies -- _g20.2. _tbalance of convenience -- _gP21. _tPermission. The claimant must obtain permission for judicial review, by prompt and candid papers disclosing an arguable case -- _g21.1. _tGranting or refusing permission -- _g21.2. _tCase-management at the permission stage -- _gP22. _tSubstantive hearing. At the hearing the Court decides whether there are grounds for intervening and whether to grant a remedy -- _g22.1. _tPost-permission/pre-hearing steps -- _g22.2. _tThird party participation -- _g22.3. _tDisposal without a hearing -- _g22.4. _tsubstantive hearing -- _gP23. _tAppeal. An appeal lies from the Administrative Court's decisions (except the grant of permission) -- _g23.1. _tPermission-stage appeals -- _g23.2. _tSubstantive appeals -- _g23.3. _tNature of the Court of Appeal's approach -- _gP24. _tRemedies. The Court has discretionary power to quash, mandate, prevent and clarify -- _g24.1. _tremedial toolkit -- _g24.2. _tdeclaration -- _g24.3. _tRemedy as a discretionary matter -- _g24.4. _tremedies in action -- _gP25. _tMonetary remedies. Judicial review embraces damages, debt and restitution, HRA "just satisfaction" and EU reparation; but a broader financial response to maladministration awaits development -- _g25.1. _tAvailability of debt, restitution and damages -- _g25.2. _tRecognised species of monetary claim -- _g25.3. _tPublic law reparation: no damages for maladministration -- _gB. _tPARAMETERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: further dominant themes shaping the law and practice -- _gP26. _tDelay. Claims must be prompt (3 months in an EU case); undue delay can be fatal to permission or (if prejudicial) a remedy -- _g26.1. _tapproach to delay -- _g26.2. _tPromptness and the running of time -- _g26.3. _tGood reason to extend time -- _g26.4. _tHardship, prejudice and detriment -- _gP27. _tPublic/private. Judicial review is the (normally non-exclusive) application of "public law" principles to "public" functions -- _g27.1. _tpublic/private distinction -- _g27.2. _tPublic law principles outside CPR -- _g27.3. _tProcedural exclusivity/abuse of process -- _gP28. _tOuster. Head-on statutory exclusion of judicial review is theoretically possible but constitutionally dubious -- _g28.1. _tOusting judicial review: a hostile climate -- _g28.2. _tTime-limit ousters -- _gP29. _tInterpretation. Discerning the true meaning of legislative and other relevant sources is vital to effective judicial review -- _g29.1. _tpurposive approach to interpretation -- _g29.2. _tLegislative purpose and judicial review -- _g29.3. _tStatutory interpretation -- _g29.4. _tUsing Hansard -- _g29.5. _tInterpreting other sources -- _gP30. _tFunction. It is essential to understand the role and responsibilities of the decision-maker under review -- _g30.1. _tUnderstanding the defendant's function -- _g30.2. _tTraditional functional labels -- _g30.3. _tjudicial/administrative distinction -- _g30.4. _tOther aspects of function -- _gP31. _tContext. Context being everything, the Court will always respond to the nature and circumstances of the individual case -- _g31.1. _tContextualism -- _g31.2. _tCircumstances -- _g31.3. _tCharacteristics and conduct of the claimant -- _g31.4. _tClaimant's failure to complain/raise the concern at the time -- _g31.5. _t"Flexi-principles" -- _gP32. _tModified review. Matters may involve part-availability of judicial review; or restricted or enhanced grounds.
588			_aMachine converted from AACR2 source record.
650		0	_aJudicial review _zEngland _9722771
650		0	_aJudicial review _zWales _9722787
650		0	_aJudicial review of administrative acts _zGreat Britain _vDigests _9743616
907			_a.b12981527 _b03-10-17 _c28-10-15
942			_cB
945			_a347.42012 FOR _g1 _iA499737B _j0 _lcmain _o- _p$255.30 _q- _r- _s- _t0 _u5 _v4 _w0 _x3 _y.i13329091 _z29-10-15
998			_ab _ac _b06-04-16 _cm _da _feng _genk _h0
999			_c1252398 _d1252398