R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals The possibilities of consensual resolution of judicial conflicts with the Public Administration

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (72) ◽  
pp. 31-50
Author(s):  
Gabriel Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Studies

This text endeavors to define the theoretical limits of the capacities of the public administrative authorities to reach consensual solutions to disputes within the framework of judicial review. It is motivated by the lack of a clear understanding in Brazilian law of the border area between the legal relations of public and private law involving the public authorities, and the expressions “inalienable right” (or “inalienable interest”) and “public interest” as shown by the inexplicable asymmetry between what the public administrative authorities can do within a judicial proceeding and outside one. Based on a comparative study of common law versus civil law legal systems and an examination of the treatment of the subject in Brazilian statutes, case law and legal studies, this article reviews the relationship between the public interest and inalienability, demonstrating, in conclusion, that the possibility of the administrative authorities to enter into settlements or follow similar practices should not be rejected a priori, even in cases of public law. According to the author, there are three possible scenarios in which public administrative authorities may resort to consensual dispute resolution in the context of the judicial review: in private-law relationships, in public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of administrative actions prescribed by law and public-law relationships with respect to the exercise of discretionary powers.

Public Servitudes for the Certain Types of Facilities Placing: Towards a Discussion on Public Interest Presence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Interest ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
The Right

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Delphine Costa
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
Laws And Regulations ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter describes administrative procedure and judicial review in France. In French public law, no constitutional provision provides for judicial review of administrative measures. Nor is there a convention providing for judicial review of administrative measures. This is only envisaged by the laws and regulations, in particular the Administrative Justice Code and the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. The administrative courts exercise extensive control over the acts or measures of the public administration, including both individual decisions and regulatory acts, but some are nonetheless beyond judicial review. Where an act or measure is contested on procedural grounds, judicial review takes place only under certain conditions: the procedural defect must have deprived the applicant of a guarantee or it must have influenced the meaning of the decision taken. Two types of judicial remedy exist in administrative law: it is therefore up to the applicant to limit their application before the administrative judge.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

13. The nature of judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-308
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Reform ◽  
Actual Decision ◽  
Public Bodies

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the jurisdiction exists to control the exercise of power by public bodies. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is outlined.

15. Introduction to judicial review

2021 ◽  
pp. 356-374
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Government Power ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
And Control ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter looks at the purpose and constitutional significance of judicial review. Where public bodies overreach themselves by acting unlawfully, the judicial review process allows individuals to hold public bodies to account in the courts, ensuring that governmental and public powers are lawfully exercised. This maintains the rule of law by helping to protect the public from the arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of government power. Judicial review is therefore a powerful check and control by the courts on executive action, but it also raises issues of whether the process gives the judiciary too much power over the elected government. There are three preliminary or threshold issues that a claimant needs to satisfy when bringing a judicial review claim. To be amenable to judicial review, the claim must raise a public law matter; it must be justiciable; and the claimant must have standing (locus standi).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document