دكتور غنام
قناة دكتور أكرم على يوتيوب

آخـــر الــمــواضــيــع

صفحة 1 من 28 12311 ... الأخيرةالأخيرة
النتائج 1 إلى 10 من 274

الموضوع: England and Wales High Court of Justice

  1. #1

    افتراضي England and Wales High Court of Justice

    [align=left]
    Year 1993






    R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p. Dyer, Court off Appeal - Administrative Court, October 19, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 3


    CO-0651-9
    BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 3
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (DIVISIONAL COURT)

    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London W2

    Date: Tuesday, 19th October 1993

    B e f o r e:

    LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN


    -and-

    MR JUSTICE BUCKLEY

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    R E G I N A

    -v-

    THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
    EX PARTE MONICA DYER

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of John Larking
    Verbatim Reporters, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
    Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    THE APPLICANT appeared in Person.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    JUDGMENT
    Tuesday, 19th October 1993 Lord Justice Simon Brown: This is an application by Miss Monica Dyer for judicial review of a decision of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (hereafter the PCA) dated 20th December 1991 not to re-open his investigation into her complaints against the Department of Social Security. Those complaints were many and various with regard to ...


    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  2. #2

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Bentley, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 07, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 2


    CO/2912/92
    BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 2
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (DIVISIONAL COURT)
    Royal Courts of Justice

    Date: Wednesday, 7th July 1993.
    Before:
    LORD JUSTICE WATKINS
    and
    LORD JUSTICE NEILL
    and
    MR JUSTICE TUCKEY
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Crown Office List
    THE QUEEN v
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
    Ex parte IRIS PAMALA BENTLEY
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
    Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    MR D PANNICK Q.C. and MR M SHAW (instructed by Messrs B M Birnberg & Co., London, SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
    MR S RICHARDS and MR R SINGH (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    JUDGMENT
    LORD JUSTICE WATKINS: This is the judgment of the Court.
    Iris Pamala Bentley, the applicant for judicial review, has been campaigning for almost 4O years to obtain recognition of what she and many other people regard as a gross miscarriage of justice in the case of her brother, Derek Bentley. She wants that recognition to take the form of a posthumous Free Pardon for him. That, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary), by a decision which was announced on l October l992, declined to recommend.
    That is the decision which we have been asked by the applicant to review. The relief which she seeks, and for which she has the leave of this Court to apply, is a declaration that the Home Secretary erred in law in declining to recommend a posthumous Free Pardon for Derek Bentley and mandamus to require the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. Bentley, then l9 years of age, was convicted, together with Christopher Craig, at the Central Criminal Court on ll December l952 before Lord Goddard, Chief Justice, of the murder of Police Constable Sidney George Miles at C...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  3. #3

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p. Rees-Mogg, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 4


    No: CO 2040 93
    BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 4
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (DIVISIONAL COURT)
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London WC2

    Date: Friday, 30th July 1993
    B e f o r e :
    LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
    LORD JUSTICE MANN
    and
    MR JUSTICE AULD
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    CROWN OFFICE LIST
    R E G I N A
    v
    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    EX PARTE LORD REES MOGG
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    MR D PANNICK QC, MR K LINDBLOM, MR R THOMPSON and MR J CALLMAN (instructed by Gouldens, London EC4) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
    MR S KENTRIDGE QC, MR S RICHARDS and MR D ANDERSON (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    JUDGMENT
    Friday, 30th July 1993 LORD JUSTICE LLOYD: The applicant in these proceedings, the Rt. Hon. Lord Rees Mogg, seeks inter alia a declaration that the United Kingdom may not lawfully ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992. Mr Pannick QC advances three main arguments on his behalf. First, by ratifying the Protocol on Social Policy the Government of the United Kingdom would be in breach of section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. Secondly, by ratifying the Protocol, the Government would be altering the content of Community Law, without Parliamentary approval. Thirdly, by ratifying Title V of the Treaty, the Government would be transferring part of the Royal Prerogative to community institutions withou...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  4. #4

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Universities Funding Council ex p. The Institute of Dental Surgery, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 30, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 5


    No: CO 423 93
    BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 5
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (DIVISIONAL COURT)
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London WC2

    Date: Friday, 30th July 1993
    B e f o r e :
    LORD JUSTICE MANN
    and
    MR JUSTICE SEDLEY
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    CROWN OFFICE LIST
    R E G I N A
    v
    THE UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL
    EX PARTE THE INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SURGERY
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    MR D PANNICK QC and MR J HERBERG (instructed by Church Adams, Tatham & Co., Fulwood House, Fulwood Place, London WC1V 6HR) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
    MR M BELOFF QC and MISS C BOOTH (instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, 20 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    JUDGMENT
    Friday, 30th July 1993
    LORD JUSTICE MANN: I am sorry you have been kept waiting a few moments. I will ask Mr Justice Sedley to give the judgment of the Court.
    MR JUSTICE SEDLEY: This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Universities Funding Council as it then was, published on the 17th December 1992, to place the Institute of Dental Surgery, the applicant, at level 2 in its assessment of the quality of institutional research. The decision has direct implications for the level of government funding and indirect implications for the level of outside funding which the Institute can expect in the year 1993/4. Brooke J gave leave on the 3rd March 1993 to apply, with expedition, for a declaration that the respondent Council had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant Institute; certiorari to quash the decision, and mandamus to require the successor body, the Higher Education Funding Council, to reconsider the matter.
    The applicant Institute is a college of the University of London. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, it is entirely dedicated to postgraduate teaching and research in dentistry. The Universities Funding Council (UFC) was established by section 131 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It was established as a body corporate consisting of fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State, six of them being engaged and experienced in higher education. By sub section (4) the Council was made responsible for administering central funds made available to it for the support of eligible activities, these being defined by sub section (5) as including the provision of education and the undertaking of research by universities. Sub section (6) gave the Council power to make grants for the prescribed purposes to the governing bodies of universities. Sub section (7) provides:
    "In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section, the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which grants are made under sub section (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources."
    Sub section (9) places an obligation on the governing body of any university to give the Council such information as it requires for the foregoing purpos...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  5. #5

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Richmond upon Thames LBC & Ors (No.1), Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 29, 1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 1


    CO/2110/93
    BAILII Citation Number: [1993] EWHC QB 1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    CROWN OFFICE LIST

    Royal Courts of Justice,
    The Strand,
    London. WC2.


    Date:29 September 1993


    Before:

    MR. JUSTICE LAWS

    - - - - - - - - - - --


    R E G I N A


    - V -


    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

    Ex Parte

    (1) THE COUNCIL OF THE LONDON
    BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES
    (2) THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD
    (3) TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
    (4) THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
    (5) SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL


    - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
    (Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
    John Larking, Chancery House, 53/64 Chancery Lane, London WC2
    Telephone No. 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

    - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - ---

    MR. RICHARD GORDON (Instructed by Richard Buxton, Cambridge) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.

    MR. I. BURNETT and MR MARK SHAW (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.


    - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --

    JUDGMENT




    Wednesday 29th September 1993

    JUDGMENT
    MR. JUSTICE LAWS: On 6th July 1993 the Secretary of State for Transport announced his intention to introduce in October 1993 what is described in his press notice as "A tough new quota system of night flying restrictions to reduce noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted". The decision to introduce these measures is the subject of the judicial review now before me. Sedley J gave leave on 30th July 1993. The applicants are a number of local authorities for the areas around each airport. They say that their constituents, or inhabitants, will be adversely affected by the new regime if it comes into force. The respondent is of course the Secretary of State.
    Restrictions against night movements by aircraft at Heathrow have been in effect since 1962. Most recently a set of measures was introduced in 1988 which covered both Heathrow and Gatwick. Although, as I understand it, it has been updated from time to time, the regime of 1988 at present remains in force, but it is due to expire in October 1993, and it is the respondent's intention to substitute his new measures (which will for the first time impose restrictions at Stansted) with effect from 24th of that month. Put simply, the existing means of control involves a direct limitation upon the number of take-off and landing movements permitted at night. Shorn of certain detailed qualifications which do not matter for present purposes, the number of such movements presently allowed at Heathrow is 5,750 per year. The Secretary of State's new proposals, however, take a different form. At this stage I shall give only a crude description; it will be necessary to refine it later. A Quota count (QC) is to be assigned to each aircraft type. Each QC consists of a number of units from 0.5 to 16. In simple terms, the higher the QC, the noisier the aircraft. A given number of quota points will be assigned to each airport (12,000 in the case of Heathrow: 7000 for the summer season, 5000 for the winter). Aircraft movements which would produce any excess over the quota limit will be prohibited. The difference between the old system and the new system is therefore this: whereas at present, night flying restrictions are achieved by reference to an express specification of the number of the individual aircraft movements permitted, hereafter it will be done by reference to the permitted maximum number of quota points, and this means that within the ceiling defined by the maximum quotas, the aircraft operators will be free to choose how the quota is to be distributed between noisier and less noisy aircraft; they may operate a gr
    [/align]
    ...
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  6. #6

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Year 1994
    R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p. The World Development Movement Ltd, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 10, 1994, [1995] 1 All ER 611,[1995] COD 211,[1994] EWHC Admin 1,[1995] 1 WLR 386


    CO1455/94
    BAILII Citation Number: [1994] EWHC QB 1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (DIVISIONAL COURT)
    Royal Courts of Justice Strand
    London WC2

    Date: Thursday, 10th November 1994

    B e f o r e:
    LORD JUSTICE ROSE
    and
    MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REGINA
    v
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    EX PARTE THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT LIMITED
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Computer aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2
    Telephone No: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464
    Fax No: 071 404 7443
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    MR N PLEMING QC and MR O DAVIES (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
    MR S RICHARDS (Instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    JUDGMENT
    Thursday, 10th November 1994.

    LORD JUSTICE ROSE: There is before the court an application by the World Development Movement Ltd for judicial review of two decisions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in relation to aid to fund the Pergau Dam in Malaysia. The initial decision to grant aid was made on or shortly before 8th July 1991. The application refers to 15th July, which was the date of a press release in relation to the matter, but nothing turns on the precise date.
    In early 1994 there were proceedings in public before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee which led the Applicants' solicitors to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that no further funds would be furnished. On 29th April 1994 the Secretary of State refused to give such an assurance, and that is the second decision which is challenged.
    By the Notice of Motion the Applicants seek to have both decisions quashed and an Order preventing further payments from being made. But it may be that the Applicants will be content with a declaration that the July 1991 decision to make a grant was unlawful. In the course of the hearing before this court there have been four issues. First, whether the Applicants have standing to make the application; secondly, whether disclosure should be ordered of two minutes from Sir Tim Lankester, Permanent Secretary in the Overseas Development Administration, ("ODA") to Baroness Chalker, the Minister of Overseas Development, dated 5th and 7th February 1991; thirdly, whether the July 1991 decision was lawful; fourthly, what is the appropriate relief, if any, taking delay into account. As to the seco...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  7. #7

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Year 1995
    R v Coventry Airport & Anor ex p. Phoenix Aviation & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 1995, [1995] EWHC Admin 1


    CO-3303-94: CO-0201-95: CO-649-95

    BAILII Citation Number: [1995] EWHC QB 1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    CROWN OFFICE LIST
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London WC2A 2LL

    Date: Wednesday 12 April 1995

    B E F O R E;

    LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN
    MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

    - - - - - - - - - -
    B e t w e e n :

    R v COVENTRY AIRPORT & ANOR
    EX PARTE PHOENIX AVIATION & ORS

    R v DOVER HARBOUR BOARD
    EX PARTE PETER GILDER & SONS & ANOR

    R v ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
    EX PARTE PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Computer Aided Transcript of John Larking
    Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1QX
    Tel: 071 404 7464 071 404 7464 Fax: 071 404 7443
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court
    - - - - - - - - - -
    SIR CHRISTOPHER PROUT QC and MISS K MCHUGH (Instructed by Beachcroft Stanleys, London, EC4A 1BN) appeared on behalf of Phoenix Aviation Ltd.
    MR S ISAACS QC and MR C LEWIS (Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, agents for Coventry City Council) appeared on behalf of Coventry Airport & Anor.
    MR D PANNICK QC and MR D ANDERSON (Instructed by Mowll & Mowll, Dover CT16 1PN) appeared on behalf of Dover Harbour Board.
    MR D VAUGHAN QC and MR P MOSER and MR D LLOYD-JONES (Instructed by Cole & Cole, Oxford, OX2 052) appeared on behalf of Peter Gilder & Sons.
    MR R PLENDER QC and MR P DUFFY and MISS P WATSON (Instructed by Bindman & Partners, London, NW1 2SA) appeared on behalf of Compassion in World Farming
    MR C HADDON-CAVE (Instructed by Solicitor for the National Farmers' Union, London, WC2E 9LY) appeared on behalf of the NFU
    MR R FIELD QC and MR N GIFFIN (Instructed by R B Pearce, Legal Services, Associated British Ports) appeared for Associated British Ports.
    MR R GORDON QC and MR N GREEN (Instructed by The City Solicitor, Plymouth City Council) appeared on behalf of Plymouth City Council. - - - - - - - - - -
    JUDGMENT
    Lord Justice SIMON BROWN:
    I
    Introduction
    The export of live animals for slaughter is lawful. But many think it immoral. They object in particular to the shipment of live calves for rearing in veal crates, a practice banned in this country since 1990. The result is that for some months past the trade has attracted wide-spread concern and a great deal of highly publicised protest. Some of that protest is lawful; some alas is not. The precise point at which the right of public demonstration ends and the criminal offence of public nuisance begins may be difficult to detect. But not only is all violent conduct unlawful; so too is any activity which substantially inconveniences the public at large and disrupts the rights of others to go about their lawful business.

    It is the actual and threatened unlawful activity of animal rights protesters which underlies these three judicial review challenges. Two are brought by those wishing to export live animals, respectively through Coventry Airport and Dover Harbour; they seek to compel the port authorities to accept their trade. The third, by contrast, is brought by Plymouth City Council against its own harbour authority in an attempt to ban the trade. It is the fear of unlawful disruption which has prompted Coventry and Dover to refuse the trade (Coventry's ban being subject to the court first lifting the injunction requiring it at present to accept the trade); and which prompts Plymouth City Council to seek a similar ban. All three authorities, let it be clear at once, expressly now disavow animal welfare considerations as any part of their motivation (although earlier it was otherwise with both Coventry and Plymouth City Councils).

    The central questions raised by all three applications are these:
    1.Given that their trade is lawful, what if any rights are enjoyed by animal exporters to have it accepted by the public authorities administering the respective (air and sea) ports here under consideration? Or, putting it the other way round, what, if any, discretion have the authorities to refuse it?

    This question falls to be decided by reference to the respective statutory regimes under which each of these authorities operates.

    2.Assuming the authorities have a discretion to refuse trade which it would be within their physical capacity to handle, can they properly refuse it so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of threatened illegality? When, if ever, can a public authority properly bar lawful activity in response to unlawful protest? How absolute is the principle that the rule of law must prevail?
    3.If it be lawful under national law for these authorities to refuse this trade so as to avoid the disruptive consequences of accepting it, does such refusal nevertheless contravene European Community law?

    With that brief introduction let us turn at once to indicate something of the facts of these cases. These are before the court in the greatest detail. So as not to overburden this judgment, however, the barest summaries must suffice.


    II
    Coventry - the facts The first applicant is an air transport company, based in Coventry, engaged in the business of transporting...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  8. #8

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Year 1999
    Ascot Wood Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Transport & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 17, 1999, [2000] PLCR 265,[1999] EWHC 834 (Admin)

    SMITH BERNAL
    BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 834 (Admin)
    CO/3836/99
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (CROWN OFFICE LIST)
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London WC2

    Date: Friday, 17th December 1999

    B e f o r e:

    MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC

    Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    ASCOT WOOD LIMITED

    -v-

    (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT

    AND THE REGIONS

    (2) RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
    Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
    180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
    Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
    Fax No: 0171-831 8838
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    MR CAWS (instructed by Finers, London, W1N 6LS) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

    MR MOULD (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the First Respondent.

    The Second Respondent was not present and was not represented.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    J U D G M E N T 1. MR NIGEL MACLEOD QC: This is an application for an order under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash two decisions of the First Defendant's Inspector. The Inspector held a local enquiry into the Second Defendant's refusal to grant permission for (A) the erection of a single garage and store and (B) the removal of a condition attached to the planning permissi...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  9. #9

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, R (on the application of), R. v, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 1999, [2000] ELR 620,[1999] EWHC 831 (Admin),[2000] Ed CR 355

    SMITH BERNAL
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CO/4805/99
    BAILII Citation Number: [1999] EWHC 831 (Admin)
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
    (CROWN OFFICE LIST)


    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand
    London WC2

    Date: Friday, 20th December 1999


    B e f o r e:

    MR JUSTICE LATHAM

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    REGINA


    -v-

    THE SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR

    EX PARTE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    (Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
    Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
    180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD
    Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
    Fax No: 0171-831 8838
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    MR RICHARD CLAYTON (instructed by PG Manson, Borough Solicitors and Secretary, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Merseyside CH44 8ED) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

    MR PAUL BROWN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    J U D G M E N T
    Monday, 20th December 1999
    JUDGMENT 1. MR JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application by the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, challenging a decision of the Schools Adjudicator in relation to the admissions procedures for secondary schools, which have been adopted by the applicants. This application raises for the first time consideration of the provisions and structure of the procedures laid down by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the relevant provisions of which c...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  10. #10

    افتراضي

    [align=left]
    Year 2000
    Trevelyan v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, January 24, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 282


    11
    Case No: CO/2206/99


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION


    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

    Monday, 24th January 2000


    B e f o r e :

    MR JUSTICE LATHAM
    BETWEEN:



    (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
    Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street
    London EC4A 2HD
    Tel No: 0171 421 4040 0171 421 4040, Fax No: 0171 831 8838
    Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Mr George Laurence QC (instructed by Brooke North Solicitors for the Applicant)
    Mr John Hobson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors for the Respondent)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Judgment
    As Approved by the Court

    Crown Copyright ©

    JUDGMENT
    Mr Justice Latham:

    1. Until recently, the Applicant was the Deputy Director of the Ramblers Association; and in this appeal he acts on his own behalf, and on behalf of the Association. The proceedings before me are an appeal brought under the provisions of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) against an order made by the Respondent of the 1st April 1999 deleting a substantial proportion of a bridleway known as bridleway 8 from the definitive map of the area around Sawley in Lancashire. The bridleway forms part of a path designated by the County Council as Ribble Way. The Association is concerned not merely because of the consequent disruption of the path, but also because, it is said, important issues arise in relation to the powers given to relevant authorities under the 1981 Act to delete rights of way from definitive maps.
    2. The definitive map in question was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 (the 1949 Act). Section 27 required the relevant authority, in this case Lancashire County Council, to survey land over which a right of way was alleged to subsist and to prepare a map showing such a right of way whenever in its opinion such a right of way subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to have subsisted, at the relevant date. For the purposes of the present case, the relevant date was the 22nd September 1952. In order to carry out this ...
    [/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

صفحة 1 من 28 12311 ... الأخيرةالأخيرة

المواضيع المتشابهه

  1. Human Rights In England,Preparatory Colloquium of the XVIII International Congress of
    بواسطة القارئة في المنتدى Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 10-21-2009, 12:25 PM
  2. Human Rights In England,Preparatory Colloquium of the XVIII International Congress of
    بواسطة القارئة في المنتدى Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 10-21-2009, 11:45 AM
  3. X. & CO. (ENGLAND) LTD v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3147/67 [1968] ECHR 1
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:26 AM
  4. How does the criminal justice system work?
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى القوانين الأجنبية الجنائية Foreign Criminal Laws
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 04-03-2009, 12:37 AM

المفضلات

المفضلات

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •