(New Zealand High Court) Cooke J said: ‘Whether non-compliance with a procedural requirement is fatal turns less on attaching a perhaps indefinite label to that requirement than on considering its place in the scheme of the Act or regulations and the degree and seriousness of the non-compliance.’
References: [1976] 1 NZLR 630
Judges: Cooke J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Charles v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission and The Disciplinary Tribunal PC 19-Jun-2002 (, , , (Appeal No 34 of 2001), [2002] UKPC 34, [2003] 1 LRC 422)
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Disciplinary proceedings had commenced against the appellant, the chief magistrate, but the time limits had not been followed. The appellant argued that the time limits were mandatory. . . - Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (, [2005] UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05, [2005] 3 WLR 303, [2006] 1 AC 340, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 79, [2006] Crim LR 167, [2005] 4 All ER 321, [2006] 2 Cr App R 20)
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not . . - Cited – TTM v London Borough of Hackney and Others CA 14-Jan-2011 (, [2011] EWCA Civ 4, [2011] HRLR 14, [2011] PTSR 1419, [2011] Med LR 38, [2011] 1 WLR 2873)
The claimant had been found to have been wrongfully detained under section 3. He appealed against rejection of his claim for judicial review and for damages. The court found that his detention was lawful until declared otherwise. He argued that the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.228957 br>