17. Tribunals

Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 688-729
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Law System

This chapter considers the role and constitutional status of tribunals that determine appeals against initial decisions made by government agencies. It also examines the place of tribunals within the UK’s public law system and the reorganisation of the tribunals into a new, integrated, and unified tribunals system brought about by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. An overview of the tribunals system, tribunal procedures, and judicial oversight of tribunal decision-making is also provided.

16. Tribunals

Public Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Law System

This chapter considers the role and constitutional status of tribunals that determine appeals against initial decisions made by government agencies. It also examines the place of tribunals within the UK’s public law system and the reorganisation of the tribunals into a new, integrated, and unified tribunals system brought about by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. An overview of the tribunals system, tribunal procedures, and judicial oversight of tribunal decision-making is also provided.

Ecologically Sustaining Research Partnerships

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Jozwiak ◽  
Karen L. B. Burgard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Ecological Systems ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Research Partnership ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Systems Model ◽  
Ecological Systems Model

It is essential that universities and local or government agencies begin to work together to do unconventional and impactful research that is mutually sustaining to both partners. When done well, the partnerships will strengthen the positions of each institution to continue to do their work and create new opportunities for equity and advancement. The challenges associated with building these types of partnerships are numerous, but even more challenges exist when the partnerships are committed to working in solidarity. To create partnerships that are examples of solidarity leading to mutual sustainability, partners must be intentional about using an ecological-systems model to shape the decision-making process. In doing so, the partners enact an Ecologically Sustaining Research Partnership (ESRP), which ensures that both partners are strengthened by and exist beyond the life of the partnership. Importantly, ESRPs are committed to equity and empowerment and use the ecological-systems model to shift the basis of power in favor of commonly oppressed groups. This emancipatory approach to research is essential for the field of early childhood, but it can also be expanded to guide partnerships between universities and communities across disciplines.

scholarly journals Pengaruh Sistem Informasi Akuntansi, Ukuran Kinerja Keuangan Dan Otoritas Pengambilan Keputusan Terhadap Akuntabilitas Kinerja

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Novaliastuti Masiaga
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Systems ◽  
Accounting Information ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Accounting Information Systems ◽  
Performance Accountability ◽  
District Government ◽  
Government Data ◽  
Positive Effect ◽  
Measures Of Performance

The purpose of this study is to examine the variables that affect the performance accountability of the Boalemo Regency government. Data collection was carried out by giving questionnaires to 30 OPDs in the local government of Boalemo Regency and also by interviewing several financial subdivisions. The statistical method used to test the hypothesis is and multiple linear regression.The results of the study show that. First, accounting information systems, measures of performance and decision-making authority have a positive effect on performance accountability. Second, information systems and decision-making authority partially have a positive and significant influence on performance accountability. Third, the measure of financial performance partially has a negative and insignificant effect on the performance accountability of Boalemo District Government agencies. It can also be seen from the Determination Test that 32% increase in the accountability performance of Buol district government agencies can be explained by accounting information systems decision making while the rest can be explained by other variables at 68%.

scholarly journals A VINCULAÇÃO DO PRINCÍPIO PROCESSUAL DA NÃO-SURPRESA E A APLICAÇÃO DA LEI DE INTRODUÇÃO ÀS NORMAS DO DIREITO BRASILEIRO – LINDB

Percurso ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (30) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Frabriccio Petreli TAROSSO
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
National Tax ◽  
Definition Of

RESUMOO presente artigo pretende aproximar alguns conceitos da novel Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro – LINDB ao princípio da não-surpresa aplicável ao processo tributário, seja ele Administrativo ou Judicial. A Lei Federal n. 13.655 de 25/04/2018 houve por incluir no Decreto-Lei nº 4.657, de 4 de setembro de 1942 - Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro - disposições sobre segurança jurídica e eficiência na criação e na aplicação do direito público. Deste modo, muitas dúvidas têm surgido acerca da convivência entre a regra geral de direito tributário, inserta no Art. 144 do Código Tributário Nacional, de que a lei vigente à época dos fatos geradores deve ser levada em conta ao deslinde de uma questão e que a jurisprudência majoritária à época dos mesmos fatos – se modificada – não deve servir de parâmetro para a tomada das decisões. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro – LINDB; Princípio Processual da não-surpresa.ABSTRACTThe present article intends to approximate some concepts of the novel Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law - LINDB to the principle of non-surprise applicable to the tax process, be it Administrative or Judicial. Federal Law n. 13,655 dated 04/25/2018, there was a need to include in Decree-Law No. 4.657, dated September 4, 1942 - Law on Introduction to the Rules of Brazilian Law - provisions on legal certainty and efficiency in the creation and application of public law. In this way, many doubts have arisen about the coexistence between the general rule of tax law, inserted in Article 144 of the National Tax Code, that the law in force at the time of the generating facts must be taken into account in the definition of an issue and that the majority case-law at the time of the same facts - if modified - should not serve as a parameter for decision-making. The study will have as a method the legal and bibliographical research on the subject.KEYWORDS: Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law – LINDB; Procedural Principle of Non-Surpris

Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
House Of Lords

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, House of Lords. This case note considers the introduction of a revised test for bias in public law decision-making. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539, House of Lords

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Public Law ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
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 R v Secretary for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539, House of Lords. This case explored whether a decision-maker acting in a quasi-judicial capacity was bound by the same decision-making standards including, for example, whether retrospective decision-making was permitted. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Factors Influencing the Use of Comparative Arguments by Courts

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Legal System ◽  
National Level ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Specific Domain ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

Whether or not judges use comparative arguments is determined by a complex interplay of a number of legal and extra-legal factors within each legal system. The chapter introduces and discusses a number of such factors, which influence the likelihood of the use of comparative reasoning within judicial decision-making at the national level. The factors are grouped into four areas: general, institutional, procedural, and human factors. The closing two sections of this chapter discuss two specific, domain-dependent issues: first, whether it makes any difference, for the likelihood of the use of comparative reasoning, if the dispute at hand pertains to the area of private law or public law. Secondly, the final section addresses the same question with respect to the area of constitutional adjudication and human rights.

13. The nature of judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-308
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Reform ◽  
Actual Decision ◽  
Public Bodies

Judicial review is a procedure whereby the courts determine the lawfulness of the exercise of executive power. It is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process as opposed to the merits of the actual decision. Thus it is supervisory rather than appellate. Emphasis is also placed on the fact that the jurisdiction exists to control the exercise of power by public bodies. This chapter discusses the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts, procedural reform, the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman, the public law/private law distinction, collateral challenge, and exclusion of judicial review. The procedure for making a claim for judicial review under the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR) 54 is outlined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document