Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, in the Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
City Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, House of Lords. This case is concerned with the identification of public bodies and public functions under s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case, the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

4. The Scope of Public Law Principles

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Jason Varuhas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Contractual Arrangements ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Discretionary Powers ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter examines the scope of judicial review as it applies to the principles of public law. It first explains why discretionary powers conferred by legislation are not always subject to judicial review before discussing prerogative powers and their amenability to judicial review. It then considers justiciability as the limiting factor in the extent to which the in-principle reviewability of the prerogative is of any practical significance. It also examines issues regarding de facto powers, with particular emphasis on the scope of judicial review, the limits of review and its underlying rationale, and the extent to which contractual arrangements may displace the courts' willingness to review. Finally, it explores which public bodies must respect human rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. A number of relevant cases are cited throughout the chapter, including R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

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 Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Handyside v United Kingdom (1979–80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Domestic Law

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Handyside v United Kingdom (1979-80) 1 EHRR 737, European Court of Human Rights. This case concerned a book which breached the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The publisher, Handyside, contended that the domestic law (the 1959 Act) breached his Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The case introduced the concept of the ‘margin of appreciation’ accorded to states as regards the implementation of convention rights. The case predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Mosely v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 774, European Court of Human Rights. This case provides an exemplar of the challenges of balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of press regulation. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, House of Lords. This case concerned the Human Rights Act 1998, the willingness of the courts to engage with national security matters and, by extension, considered how key constitutional principles should shape the courts’ approach. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

MIND THE GAP… : CHILD PROTECTION, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Joanna Miles
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal

“The problem is more with what the [Children] Act does not say than with what it does”: Hale L.J., Court of Appeal at para. [50]. Therein lay the problem addressed in Re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10, [2002] 2 W.L.R. 720; reversing in part [2001] EWCA Civ 757, [2001] 2 F.L.R. 582. This case involves key issues in child protection under the Children Act 1989 and provides further guidance regarding the courts’ interpretation of legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document