swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Judicial Review - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Regina -v- Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte NALGO; CA 1992 - (1992) 5 Admin LR 785; [1993] ALR 785
Regina -v- Department of Transport, ex parte Presvac Engineering Ltd (1992) 4 Admin LR 121
1992
Purchas LJ
Judicial Review
In a judicial review application, the question of standing falls to be considered again in deciding whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant relief: "The court must ... review at [the substantive] stage the question of sufficiency of interest and exercise its discretion accordingly. Whether this is properly called an investigation of locus standi or the exercise of discretion whether to grant [a remedy] is probably a semantic distinction without a difference. Personally I would prefer to restrict the use of the expression locus standi to the threshold exercise and to describe the decision at the ultimate stage as an exercise of discretion not to grant [a remedy] because the [claimant] has not established that he had been or was sufficiently affected."
1 Citers
Regina -v- Rochdale MBC ex parte Schemet (1992) 91 LGR 425
1992
Roch J
Judicial Review
In a proper case the court may permit a challenge to a decision which is months out of time.
1 Citers
Regina -v- Chief Constable, ex parte McKenna [1992] NI 116
1992
Northern Ireland, Judicial Review
A detained person challenged the police handling of his case by way of judicial review.
1 Citers
Regina -v- Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, Ex parte Wachmann; 1992 - [1992] 1 WLR 1036
Regina -v- Durham County Council, ex parte Robinson Times, 31 January 1992
31 Jan 1992
Pill J
Administrative, Judicial Review
The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the local authority to terminate his stallholder's licence. The parties had agreed that a sufficient element of public law was involved to give the court jurisdiction to review the decision. Held: It was not open to the parties to create jursidiction for the court. No sufficient element of public law was involved and a review was refused.
1 Citers
Roy -v- Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee; HL 6-Feb-1992 - Gazette, 06 May 1992; [1992] 1 AC 624; [1992] 7 CL 474; [1992] 2 WLR 239; [1991] UKHL 8; [1992] IRLR 233; (1992) 4 Admin LR 649; [1992] 3 Med LR 177; [1992] 1 All ER 705
Payabi and Another -v- Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another Gazette, 01 April 1992; [1992] 1 QB 907
1 Apr 1992
QBD
Hobhouse J
Judicial Review, Limitation
A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: "But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is implicitly (but inelegantly) giving effect to the first alternative, (a), in section 35(6). The result is that the rule relevant to the present case, Ord 20. r. 5, must be construed as being made under the general power to regulate procedure and under the more specific power given for the purposes of that Act by section 35 of the Act of 1980."
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986 - Limitation Act 1980 35(6)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina -v- Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina -v- Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page; HL 3-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 10 March 1993; [1993] 3 WLR 1112; [1993] AC 682; [1992] UKHL 12
Regina -v- Advertising Standards Authority Ltd Ex Parte Vernons Organisation Ltd; QBD 9-Dec-1992 - Gazette, 09 December 1992; [1992] 1 WLR 1289
Regina v Tottenham Magistrates Court ex parte Gleaves CO/2253/90; unreported 18 December 1992
18 Dec 1992
Admn
Evans LJ and Otton J
Litigation Practice, Judicial Review
An application for permission to bring judicial review and the judicial review proceedings themselves (whether in a civil or criminal cause or matter) are all civil proceedings and are caught by a civil proceedings order against the applicant.
Evans LJ concluded that all proceedings under RSC Order 53 were civil proceedings: "The matter can be tested in this way. So far as these proceedings are concerned, that is to say, Mr Gleaves' application for judicial review . . there is no prosecutor and there is no defendant. Indeed . . the intended defendant in the Magistrates Court is not necessarily a party to these proceedings. This is an application by Mr Gleaves and the respondent is the Tottenham Magistrates Court. These are civil proceedings. Mr Gleaves seeks to invoke the powers of the civil courts admittedly for the purposes, as he sees them, of the criminal proceedings which he seeks to institute in the magistrates court but does not alter the fact in my view that he is invoking the powers of the civil court and that an application under O 53 at all its stages, even when the application relates to a criminal cause or matter, is nevertheless properly to be regarded as a civil proceeding."
1 Citers
