The applicant challenged a decision of disciplinary committee to go ahead with an allegation of misconduct after considerable delay by council and failure to abide by its own rules. After not receiving a notice of proceedings the applicant had destroyed papers which he would have relied upon.
Held: Although the Council was amenable to judicial review, the rules explicitly gave the Council discretion and flexibility. They had not breached their obligations by virtue only of the failure to meet the timetable. It was not for the administrative court at this stage to say whether a fair trial was impossible, and the request for judicial review was refused.
 EWHC 133 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v General Council of the Bar ex parte Percival 1991
The Bar Council was amenable to judicial review for an alleged failure to comply with its own Professional Conduct Committee Rules (annexed to the Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales) even though neither the Code of Conduct nor the . .
Cited – Spiers v Ruddy PC 12-Dec-2007
Limits to Powers in Devolution Cases
Mr Spiers had complained as to the competency of two temporary sheriffs called to hear case against him, saying that the temporary nature of their appointments did not allow them to constitute an independent tribunal. He now complained that the . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 2001) HL 11-Dec-2003
The house was asked whether it might be correct to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse where for delay. The defendants were prisoners in a prison riot in 1998. The case only came on for trial in 2001, when they submitted that the delay was an . .
Cited – Regina v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland PC 28-Nov-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The prosecution had accepted that the matter had been the subject of unreasonable delay, but wished to continue. The defendant sought a plea in bar, on the basis that continuing would infringe his rights.
Held: . .
Cited – London and Clydeside Estates v Aberdeen District Council HL 8-Nov-1979
The appellants had sought a Certificate of Alternative Development. The certificate provided was defective in that it did not notify the appellants, as required, of their right to appeal. Their appeal out of time was refused.
Held: The House . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.266106