(Canada – Federal Court of Appeal) The court considered the exercise of its ability to declare a statute invalid: ‘the more serious the public inconvenience and injustice likely to be caused by invalidating the resulting administrative action, including the frustration of the purposes of the legislation, public expense and hardship to third parties, the less likely it is that a court will conclude that legislative intent is best implemented by a declaration of invalidity.’
References: (2003) 228 DLR (4th) 693
Judges: Evans JA
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina v Soneji and Bullen HL 21-Jul-2005 (,  UKHL 49, , Times 22-Jul-05,  3 WLR 303,  1 AC 340,  1 Cr App R(S) 79,  Crim LR 167,  4 All ER 321,  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 (,  EWCA Civ 4,  HRLR 14,  PTSR 1419,  Med LR 38,  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.228960