Buch, Englisch, 890 Seiten, Format (B × H): 173 mm x 251 mm, Gewicht: 1502 g
ISBN: 978-1-84946-159-7
Verlag: HART PUB
Writing in the fifth edition of this Handbook, author Michael Fordham described his ambition when writing the first edition (and indeed all subsequent editions) of this book as "to read as many judicial review cases as I could and to try to extract, classify and present illustrations and statements of principle". Behind this aim lay the practitioner's overwhelming need to know and understand the case-law. Without it, as Fordham says "much can be achieved in public law through instinct, experience and familiarity with general principles which are broad, flexible and designed to accord with common sense". But with knowledge of the case law comes the vital ability to be able to point to and rely on an authoritative statement of principle and working illustration. Knowing the case-law is crucial: "the challenge is to find it".
This, the sixth edition of the Handbook, continues the tradition established by earlier editions, in rendering the voluminous case-law accessible and knowable.
This Handbook remains an indispensable source of reference and a guide to the case-law in judicial review. Established as an essential part of the library of any practitioner engaged in public law cases, the Judicial Review Handbook offers unrivalled coverage of administrative law, including, but not confined to, the work of the Administrative Court and its procedures. Once again completely revised and up-dated, the sixth edition approximates to a restatement of the law of judicial review, organised around 63 legal principles, each supported by a comprehensive presentation of the sources and an unequalled selection of reported case quotations. It also includes essential procedural rules, forms and guidance issued by the Administrative Court.
As in the previous edition, both the Civil Procedure Rules and Human Rights Act 1998 feature prominently as major influences on the shaping of the case-law. Their impact, and the plethora of cases which explore their meaning and application, were fully analysed and evaluated in the previous edition, but this time around their importance has grown exponentially and is reflected in even greater attention being given to their respective roles. Attention is also given to another new development - the coming into existence of the Supreme Court. Here Michael Fordham casts an experienced eye over the Court's work in the area of judicial review, and assesses the early signs from a Court that is expected to be one of the key influences in the development of judicial review in the modern era.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSA. THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: Keys to understanding what the Court is doing P1 A constitutional guarantee. Judicial review is the rule of law in action: a fundamental and inalienable constitutional protection. P2 Supervisory jurisdiction. Judicial review is a well-established supervisory role by the Court over public bodies. P3 Impact. A successful claim does not necessarily guarantee a favourable ultimate outcome, nor a wider knock-on effect. P4 Materiality. A claim may fail if lacking substance, as where non-material, non-prejudicial, futile, academic or premature. P5 Targets. A wide range of measures, acts, decisions, policies and omissions can be the subject of a judicial review challenge. P6 Power sources. Public bodies' powers and duties can arise under or by reference to EU and domestic legislation, common law or prerogative, policy guidance or international law. P7 Constitutional fundamentals. Core common law principles can constitute fundamentals of the UK's unwritten constitution. P8 EU law. Domestic statutes, rules and decisions must be compatible with applicable EU legislation and legal principle.P9 The HRA. Domestic legislation must be read, and public authorities must act, compatibly with HRA:ECHR rights. P10 Cooperation & candour. The Court will expect from all parties cooperative behaviour and candid disclosure. P11 Precedent & authority. Judicial precedent can bind or guide the court; academic and comparative analysis may be persuasive. P12 Reviewing primary legislation. Courts have restricted functions of assessing legal compatibility of Acts of Parliament. P13 Restraint. Courts adopt a primary self-restraint, preserving for public bodies a latitude for judgment and discretion. P14 Balancing. Judicial review principles are a careful evolving equilibrium serving the dual imperatives of vigilance and restraint. P15 The forbidden method. Judges will not intervene as if matters for the public body's judgment were for the Court's judgment. P16 Hard-edged questions. There are certain matters which the Court considers afresh for itself, imposing its own judgment. P17 Evidence and fact. Judicial review is generally conducted on written evidence and regarded as an unsuitable forum for resolving factual disputes, though this can be appropriate and necessary. P18 Costs. Generally, the loser must pay the winner's costs P19 Making the claim. Where pre-claim correspondence fails, claims are to be made and acknowledged in the prescribed way. P20 Interim remedies. The Court can make orders securing a particular state of affairs pending fi nal resolution of the claim. P21 Permission. The claimant must obtain permission for judicial review, by prompt and candid papers disclosing an arguable case. P22 Substantive hearing. At the hearing the Court decides whether there are grounds for intervening and whether to grant a remedy. P23 Appeal. An appeal lies from the Administrative Court's decisions (except the grant of permission). P24 Remedies. The Court has discretionary power to quash, mandate, prevent and clarify. P25 Monetary remedies. Judicial review embraces damages, debt and restitution, HRA "just satisfaction" and EU reparation; but a broader financial response to aladministration awaits development.B. PARAMETERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: Further dominant themes shaping the law and practice P26 Delay. Claims must be prompt (3 months in an EU case); undue delay can be fatal to permission or (if prejudicial) a remedy. P27 Public/private. Judicial review is the (normally non-exclusive) application of "public law" principles to "public" functions. P28 Ouster. Head-on statutory exclusion of judicial review is theoretically possible but constitutionally dubious. P29 Interpretation. Discerning the true meaning of legislative and other relevant sources is vital to effective judicial review. P30 Function. It is essential to understand the role and responsibilities of the decision-maker under review.
