Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The law strengthened the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the UK's system for identifying and protecting victims created in 2009 in accordance with an international anti-trafficking treaty.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed this decision. It held that procedural fairness required the decision-maker to consider the human rights of Baker's children. Children's human rights are outlined in the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court said that decision-makers must be "reasonable".
Subsequently, in O'Reilly v Mackman (1983) [4] the doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognized as part of judicial review in public law, allowing individuals to challenge the legality of decisions on the grounds that the decision-maker "had acted outwith the powers conferred upon it". [5]
The most common order made in successful judicial review proceedings is a quashing order. If the court makes a quashing order it can send the case back to the original decision maker directing it to remake the decision in light of the court’s findings. Very rarely, if there is no purpose in sending the case back, it may take the decision itself.
It should be an initial check against mistaken decisions - essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action." [7] Thus, this type of hearing does not need to be elaborate and does not require a full-blown court-type evidentiary hearing.
The court accepted that "[t]he more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable". This is as long as the decision remains within the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. [26]
Roughly speaking, the conduct is reasonable if some decent employers would have handled it similarly, but unreasonable if no reasonable employer would have handled it the same or the dismissal was not based on an honest and genuine decision on reasonable grounds. [9] The tribunal cannot take account of industrial pressure to sack somebody. [10]
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 [1] is an English law case that sets out the standard of unreasonableness in the decision of a public body, which would make it liable to be quashed on judicial review, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.