15. Challenging Governmental Decisions: The Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Family Practitioner ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Government Action ◽  
Government Decision ◽  
Legal Procedures

This chapter examines the legal procedures an applicant must follow when challenging a government decision. It starts by examining the historical duality with English administrative law of the mechanism through which citizens might question the lawfulness of government action. The chapter then continues to cover the case of Barnard v National Dock Labour Board; the Order 53 reforms; the case of O’Reilly v Mackman (1982); the post-O’Reilly case law; the case of Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee; and public law principle as a defence in criminal proceedings.

15. Challenging Governmental Decisions: The Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 405-427
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Family Practitioner ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Technical Area ◽  
Legal Procedures

This chapter examines the legal procedures an applicant must follow when challenging a government decision and explores how court decisions in this nominally very technical area of administrative law can have profound implications for the meaning in practical terms of such broad constitutional principles as the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. The chapter begins by examining the historical duality with English administrative law of the mechanism through which citizens might question the lawfulness of government action. The chapter then continues to cover the case of Barnard v National Dock Labour Board; the Order 53 reforms; the case of O’Reilly v Mackman (1982); the post-O’Reilly case law; the case of Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee; and public law principle as a defence in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals Les réactions de la doctrine à la création du droit par les juges en droit administratif

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-291
Author(s):  
Pierre Lemieux
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Creative Power ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
The Law ◽  
Creative Role

This paper surveys the outlook and statements of Quebec and Canadian legal scholars and judges on issues of administrative law. It attempts to determine whether scholarly writings merely describe the existing state of the law, or whether they play a creative role in pointing for the courts the way in which law should develop towards an ideal model. To this end, an assessment is first made of the creative power of judges when interpreting the law and of the reactions of scholars to this. Then, an attempt is made to show affinities between judges' and scholars' outlook in cases where an administrative decision conflicts with individual rights or liberties. The paper concludes that while most public law writing in Canada and Quebec usually reads as a restatement of current case law, recent works show an increasing tendency towards independent, critical legal thinking.

Fiduciary Principles and Public Offices

2019 ◽  
pp. 302-322
Author(s):  
Ethan J. Leib ◽  
Stephen R. Galoob
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Normative Structure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Law

This chapter examines how fiduciary principles apply to public offices, focusing on what it means for officeholders to comport themselves to their respective public roles appropriately. Public law institutions can operate in accordance with fiduciary norms even when they are enforced differently from the remedial mechanisms available in private fiduciary law. In the public sector, fiduciary norms are difficult to enforce directly and the fiduciary norms of public office do not overlap completely with the positive law governing public officials. Nevertheless, core fiduciary principles are at the heart of public officeholding, and public officers need to fulfill their fiduciary role obligations. This chapter first considers three areas of U.S. public law whose fiduciary character reinforces the tenet that public office is a public trust: the U.S. Constitution’s “Emoluments Clauses,” administrative law, and the law of judging. It then explores the fiduciary character of public law by looking at the deeper normative structure of public officeholding, placing emphasis on how public officeholders are constrained by the principles of loyalty, care, deliberation, conscientiousness, and robustness. It also compares the policy implications of the fiduciary view of officeholding with those of Dennis Thompson’s view before concluding with an explanation of how the application of fiduciary principles might differ between public and private law settings and how public institutions might be designed or reformed in light of fiduciary norms.

scholarly journals Administrative Functions of Implementation, Control of Administrative Decisions, and Protection of Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Ricardo Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Functions ◽  
The One ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
Regulatory Powers ◽  
Administrative Adjudication ◽  
Administrative Justice

Abstract This essay includes a comparative analysis of the traditions of administrative law in Latin American and their impact on the contemporary scene and trends in the general orientations of its administrative justice systems. This analysis is limited to Latin American countries of Iberian origin under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“I/A Court H.R”). The method followed by the author is to point out the roles attributable to the administrative authorities and to attempt to identify a distinction in Latin America between the “administrative function of implementation”, “control of the legality of administrative decisions” (unrelated to any adjudicative function) and the “protection of rights” (by means of an adjudicative function) while examining their historical genesis and possible future trends. From that perspective, the text discusses certain administrative powers, such as disciplinary or other regulatory powers, and their forms of concrete application; the prerogatives and instruments of the authorities and of their decision-making employees in the exercise of the functions of implementation; the control of administrative decisions by those authorities themselves and by external bodies; and judicial and extrajudicial protection of rights against administrative decisions. The author concludes that Latin American administrative law, despite the fact that its civil-law substantive roots have always coexisted with judicial review typical of common law, is currently tending, on the one hand, to approximate the U.S. model of administrative adjudication and, on the other, to adapt to I/A Court H.R case law with respect to the administrative function of implementation in harmony with the fundamental right to good administration which, combined with a critical re-examination of diffuse control of the legality of administrative rules in court, would safeguard the true role of adjudicating bodies (administrative authorities or courts) in their function of protecting individual rights for the sake of more fair and equitable administrative justice.

scholarly journals The Europeanisation of Spanish Administrative Law through the Principle of Legitimate Expectations

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Luis Arroyo Jiménez ◽  
Gabriel Doménech Pascual
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Eu

This article describes the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law as a result of the influence of the EU law general principle of legitimate expectations. It examines, firstly, whether the formal incorporation of the principle of legitimate expectations into national legislation and case law has modified the substance of the latter, and if so, secondly, whether this has led to a weaker or a more robust protection of the legal status quo. To carry out that examination, the article considers the influence of the principle of legitimate expectations in two different areas: in individual administrative decision-making, and in legislative and administrative rulemaking. Our conclusion is that the Europeanisation of Spanish administrative law through the principle of legitimate expectations has been variable and ambiguous.

scholarly journals Recent Judicial Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers

1995 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
William H. Bonney ◽  
J. Jay Park
Keyword(s):  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Offshore Drilling ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Governmental Regulation ◽  
House Of Lords

This article is a compilation of recent interesting and potentially influential decisions by Canadian courts. Of note also is a judgment by the House of Lords that appears to significantly restrain the applicability of Rylands v. Fletcher. The authors have surveyed case law development in such areas as contracts, lands, leases and titles, fiduciary duties, tax, the environment, torts, surface rights, governmental regulation, offshore drilling, creditors' rights and administrative law.

scholarly journals The questions of territorial jurisdiction of advocating for the election or extension of pre-trial detention

2020 ◽  
pp. 10-20
Author(s):  
Oleg Aleksandrovich Kravchenko ◽  
Roman Valer'evich Fedorov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Accurate Determination ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Accurate determination of the place of preliminary investigation indicates adherence to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings and the achievement of goals on the protection of rights and lawful interests of the affected parties, as well as on protection of individual from wrongful and unfounded accusations and restrictions of their rights and freedoms. Science addresses the general questions pertaining to determination of the place of preliminary investigation, but does not give due attention to realization of discretionary powers of the higher investigating authority to determination of the place of preliminary investigation. The article reveals the essential conditions for application of such power by the investigating authority, and analyzes case law for compliance with these conditions. The conclusion is made that legislation does not contain clear and specific rules for determination of the place of preliminary investigation, including the territorial jurisdiction of advocating for the election or extension of pre-trial detention. The author describes the flaws in legal regulation associated with the possibility of determination of jurisdiction of a case in administrative proceedings, by means of law enforcement decision prior to the emergence of legal situation (for example, before  submission of a request for the election or extension of pre-trial detention) by lowering the rank of investigating authority, for example to district level. From the practical perspective, elimination of such flaws should facilitate the proper application of the corresponding legal norm, as well as accurate determination of the place of preliminary investigation.

scholarly journals CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY AND THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE LEGISLATION ON THE DEFINITION OF SUBJECTS AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

2019 ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
I. L. Zheltobriukh
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Scientific Terminology ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Enforcement Activity

This paper explores the existing contradictions between the scientific terminology and the terminology of legislation regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process. It is noted that acquaintance with the scientific and educational- methodological literature shows that even today there is no clear justification of the relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant of administrative process”. The main reason for this state of affairs is due to differences in the laws of development of national administrative procedural legislation and the laws of development of science of administrative procedural law. It is concluded that there is a long-standing need to offer the scientific community and practitioners such a concept of relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant in administrative process”, which would reconcile the contradictions of the otological and epistemological terminology used in the CAS. The necessity to use in the science of administrative law and process justifies the concept according to which the administrative process should be considered as law enforcement activity of administrative courts related to the consideration and resolution of public law disputes. In such a case, the administrative court will always be the subject of the administrative court, whereas the parties, third parties, representatives, assistant judge, court secretary, court administrator, witness, expert, law expert, translator, specialist are only participants in the administrative process that is, persons involved in the enforcement of administrative law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document