Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment. Lord Hoffmann agreed with Lord Steyn and said the following. [note 1]Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights.
The applicants relied on Lord Slynn′s statement as to what represented the law in R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte A (1999). [10] The CICB case engendered the following prerequisites for a finding of unfairness: [11]
The case was first heard by a Divisional Court, composed of Watkins LJ and Mann J. Mann, with Watkins concurring, rejected the Northumbria Police Authority's argument, saying that under the Royal Prerogative HM Government retained the right to do whatever "was necessary to meet either an actual or an apprehended threat to the peace", something that had not previously been recognised as a ...
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords case concerning the awarding of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case is considered significant in constitutional terms for its ruling on the extent of ministerial prerogative powers.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson [1997] UKHL 25 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the exercise of independent judgement in judicial review. Facts
These are lists of cases heard before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords until it was replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in October 2009. List of judgements of the House of Lords delivered before 1996; List of judgements of the House of Lords delivered in 1996; List of judgements of the House of Lords delivered in 1997
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1993] UKHL 8, [1994] 1 AC 531 was an important UK constitutional law case concerning applications for judicial review. Facts [ edit ]
Singh then took the case to the European Court of Justice citing EU free movement rules. Under EU law [today, Art 3(1) of the Citizens' Rights Directive], a Union citizen has the right to move to a Member State other than that of his nationality, and has the right to bring certain family members, including his non-EU national spouse, with him ...