The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged. Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on administrative grounds. The purposes it sought to implement were not within the … Continue reading Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others: CA 22 Mar 1995
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story showing a picture of her leaving a drug addiction clinic, along with … Continue reading Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1): HL 6 May 2004
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French. Held: In establishing a system or regime to comply with a Convention obligation, a State may include within the system elements that are not strictly required … Continue reading Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2: ECHR 9 Feb 1967
Psychological Obstruction to Public Footpath A public footpath crossed the appellants’ land. They constructed a gateway across it which they now accepted had been a significant obstruction of the right of way. The local authority served a notice requiring its removal, including the stone pillars erected on the path. After a failure to comply the … Continue reading Herrick and Another v Kidner and Another: Admn 17 Feb 2010
The applicant challenged a refusal to confirm a draft order recognising a road used as a path as a byway open to all traffic.
Held: The challenge succeeded. The path had been shown under the 1948 Act as a road used as a public path. The . .
The claimants appealed a refusal of their request for a judicial review of a decision of the respondent to designate their land as being of special scientific interest because of the need to protect the stone curlew.
Held: The defendant’s . .