Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
Twenty First Century

Administrative Law explains the constitutional principles of the subject and their application across the range of twenty-first-century administrative law. The focus on constitutional principles is meant to bring some order to the very diverse topics with which you need to deal if you are to understand this very complex branch of public law. The common law courts, government agencies, and Parliament have developed a wide variety of techniques for controlling the enormously diverse activities of twenty-first-century government. Underlying all that variety is a set of constitutional principles. This book uses the law of judicial review to identify and to explain these principles, and then shows how they ought to be worked out in the private law of tort and contract, in the tribunals system, and in non-judicial techniques such as investigations by ombudsmen, auditors, and other government agencies. The aim is to equip the reader to take a principled approach to the controversial problems of administrative law.

Administrative Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Complex Field ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

Administrative Law explains the constitutional principles of the subject. It brings clarity to this complex field of public law. The common law courts, government agencies, and Parliament have developed a wide variety of techniques for controlling the enormously diverse activities of twenty-first-century government. Underlying all that variety is a set of constitutional principles. This book uses the law of judicial review to identify and to explain these principles, and then shows how they ought to be worked out in the private law of tort and contract, in the tribunals system, and in non-judicial techniques such as investigations by ombudsmen, auditors, and other government agencies. The aim is to equip the reader to take a principled approach to the controversial problems of administrative law.

Interim relief in the public law context

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bamforth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Law Commission

THE remedial aspects of judicial review illustrate in particularly vivid form the divergent nature of public and private law proceedings. The prerogative orders–mandamus, certiorari and prohibition–are available only via judicial review. Leave is required for judicial review but not for private law actions. By contrast with the private law writ procedure, judicial review must be brought promptly and within three months. In judicial review, a remedy can still be denied to the applicant who establishes a substantive case. As the Law Commission made clear in its Report Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals, “[j]udicial review often involves values and policy interests, which must be balanced against and may transcend the individual interests, which are normally the subject of litigation between private citizens” (Law Com. No. 226, para. 2.1).

The Common Law in Australia: Its Nature and Constitutional Significance

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Zines
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Policy Paper ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
National University ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

This article originally was published as a Law and Policy Paper. The Law and Policy Papers series was established in 1994 by the Centre for International and Public Law in the Faculty of Law, the Australian National University. The series publishes papers contributing to understanding and discussion on matters relating to law and public policy, especially those that are the subject of contemporary debate. In 1999 the papers were published jointly by the Centre for International and Public Law and The Federation Press. This article is reproduced in the Federal Law Review with the permission of the original publishers.

Liberating Malawi's Administrative Justice Jurisprudence from Its Common Law Shackles

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danwood Mzikenge Chirwa
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Administrative Justice

AbstractThe 1994 Malawian Constitution is unique in that it, among other things, recognizes administrative justice as a fundamental right and articulates the notion of constitutional supremacy. This right and the idea of constitutional supremacy have important implications for Malawi's administrative law, which was hitherto based on the common law inherited from Britain. This article highlights the difficulties that Malawian courts have faced in reconciling the right to administrative justice as protected under the new constitution with the common law. In doing so, it offers some insights into what the constitutionalization of administrative justice means for Malawian administrative law. It is argued that the constitution has altered the basis and grounds for judicial review so fundamentally that the Malawian legal system's marriage to the English common law can be regarded as having irretrievably broken down as far as administrative law is concerned.

The Implementation of Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Principles and Problems

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-564
Author(s):  
Dawn Oliver
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Executive Agencies ◽  
The Relationship

First, I want to express my gratitude and sense of honour in being invited to deliver the Lionel Cohen lecture for 1995. The relationship between the Israeli and the British legal systems is a close and mutually beneficial one, and we in Britain in particular owe large debts to the legal community in Israel. This is especially the case in my field, public law, where distinguished academics have enriched our academic literature, notably Justice Zamir, whose work on the declaratory judgment has been so influential. Israeli courts, too, have made major contributions to the development of the common law generally and judicial review very notably.In this lecture I want to discuss the process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, and to explore some of the difficulties that lie in the way of reform. Some quite radical reforms to our system of government — the introduction of executive agencies in the British civil service, for instance—have been introduced without resort to legislation. There has been a spate of reform to local government and the National Health Service.

The Common Law Legal Tradition: First Things First

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter explains briefly the origins and development of the common law tradition in order to better understand the rise of judicial review in the seven common law countries discussed in this volume. The common law legal tradition is characterized historically, in public law, by limited, constitutional government and by forms of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation. In private law, the common law tradition is characterized by judge-made case law, which is the primary source of the law, instead of a massive code being the primary source of the law. The common law tradition is also characterized by reliance on the institution of trial by jury. Judges, rather than scholars, are the key figures who are revered in the common law legal tradition, and this is one of the key things that distinguishes the common law legal tradition from the civil law legal tradition. The common law legal tradition emphasizes judicial power, which explains why it has led to judicial review in the countries studied in this volume. It is the prevailing legal tradition in the four countries with the oldest systems of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation: the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. Thus, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in these four countries is very much shaped by common law attitudes about the roles of judges.

The Historical Foundations of Judicial Review in the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
pp. 193-230
Author(s):  
Conor McCormick
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
Fin De Siecle ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Administrative Actions

This chapter analyses judicially developed standards for reviewing administrative actions in the United Kingdom between 1890 and 1910. By exploring the context, reach, types, and frequency of judicial review during that timeframe—fin de siècle—this historical analysis reveals both significant changes and significant continuities by comparison with twenty-first century standards. The chapter concentrates in particular on reported cases which undermine the Diceyan claim that administrative law did not exist in the United Kingdom during this timeframe; and reflects on the inconsistencies that pervaded that body of law. It concludes that some judges tended to deploy concepts which had the effect of restraining administrative actions, whereas other judicial constructs tended to facilitate the administrative arrangements contested in court. As such, it recommends that the role of judicial review at this time should be characterized with this duality of purpose firmly in mind.

Judicial Review of Decisions

2019 ◽  
pp. 145-164
Author(s):  
John Baker
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Present System ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Face ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Law System

This chapter is concerned with the history of mechanisms for reviewing judicial and administrative decisions. It begins with the writ of error, which was confined to errors on the face of the record of a court of record and therefore not an appeal as now understood. But informal methods were developed for reserving points to be discussed by all the judges of England, usually in the Exchequer Chamber or Serjeants’ Inn. Appeals in a wider sense began in Chancery and were not brought into the common-law system till 1875. The ‘prerogative writs’ of prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus, enabled the King’s Bench to review inferior jurisdictions and also the exercise of power by officials and ministers. It is explained how this grew into the present system of administrative law. There is also a brief account of the rise of tribunals, and how their decisions came to be reviewable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document