9 Public Interest Petitions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
French Derek
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
A Company ◽  
Do So

The chapter deals with the powers of the Secretary of State and other public officers and bodies to petition for a company to be wound up in the public interest. A petition for winding up in the public interest can only be presented by a person who is authorized to do so by statute. If it appears to the Secretary of State, from the results of any of various investigatory processes, that it is expedient in the public interest that a company should be wound up, petition for that company to be wound up by the court. A decision to present or not present a public interest petition is subject to judicial review. The fact that a regulatory authority has acted to prevent continuation of a company’s objectionable behaviour is not a reason for refusing a winding-up order in the public interest.

Investigations and Public Interest Winding-Up Petitions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Davis
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
A Company ◽  
Do So

Serious misconduct, or breaches of duty by a company or its directors affecting the company’s relationships with members of the public, may trigger an investigation by the Secretary of State into the manner in which the company’s business has been conducted, or even the appointment of inspectors and publication of a formal report. In an appropriate case, the Secretary of State or a regulatory authority may petition the court to wind the company up on the basis that it is ‘just and equitable’ to do so in the public interest. Such a liquidation need not be predicated on insolvency. A winding-up order terminates the directors’ powers of management and is the logical response to misconduct or mismanagement by directors which is revealed by an inspector’s report.

Guarding the Public Interest: England's Coroners and Organ Transplants, 1960–1975

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 926-946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen MacDonald
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Spare Part ◽  
Organ Transplants ◽  
Legal Requirement ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

AbstractFrom the mid-twentieth century, England's coroners were crucial to the supply of organs to transplant, as much of this material was gleaned from the bodies of people who had been involved in accidents. In such situations the law required that a coroner's consent first be obtained lest removing the organs destroy evidence about the cause of the person's death. Surgeons challenged the legal requirement that they seek consent before taking organs, arguing that doing so hampered their quick access to bodies. Some coroners willingly cooperated with surgeons while others refused to do so, coming into conflict with particular transplanters whom they considered untrustworthy. This article examines how the phenomenon of “spare part” surgery challenged long-held conceptions of the coroner's role.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

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 Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

9. Control of a company

2019 ◽  
pp. 228-251
Author(s):  
Derek French
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Significant Control ◽  
Holding Company ◽  
Wholly Owned Subsidiary ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The City ◽  
A Company

This chapter discusses how control of a company can be identified and how it can change. It considers takeovers, the City Code and compulsory acquisition of remaining shares. There is full discussion of the provisions for disclosure of significant holdings both to warn of potential takeover moves and to disclose in the public interest who has significant control of a company. The statutory definitions of holding company, subsidiary and wholly owned subsidiary are considered.

8. Share transfer and company control

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek French
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
London Stock Exchange ◽  
The Public ◽  
Significant Control ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The City ◽  
A Company

This chapter discusses some of the procedures to be followed when transferring some or all of a company member’s shares to another person, for sales on and off the London Stock Exchange, transfers of all or a part of a member’s holding and transfers of certificated and uncertificated shares. After describing share certificates and uncertificated shares, the chapter considers the problem of who should bear the loss when a transfer of shares is forged or fraudulent. It also explores transmission of shares on death or bankruptcy. Transferring shares may result in a change of control of a company. The chapter considers takeovers, the City Code and compulsory acquisition of remaining shares. There is full discussion of the provisions for disclosure of significant holdings both to warn of potential takeover moves and to disclose in the public interest who has significant control of a company.

Antitrust as Public Interest Law: Redistribution, Equity, and Social Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-101
Author(s):  
Dina I. Waked
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Allocative Efficiency ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Interest Law ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
History Of ◽  
Do So

This article proposes the use of antitrust law to reduce poverty and address inequality. It argues that the antitrust laws are sufficiently malleable to achieve such goals. The current focus of antitrust on the efficiency-only goals does not only lead to increasing inequality further but is also inconsistent with the history of antitrust. This history is presented through the lens of the public interest that emerges into the balance between private property and competition policy. Tracing the public interest at different historical moments, we get to see how it has been broad enough to encompass social welfare concerns. Over time, the public interest concern of antitrust was narrowed to exclusively cover consumer welfare and its allocative efficiency. Once we frame antitrust as public interest law, in its broadest sense, we are empowered to use it to address inequality. A proposal to do so is exposed in this article.

9. Control of a company

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek French
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Significant Control ◽  
Holding Company ◽  
Wholly Owned Subsidiary ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The City ◽  
A Company

This chapter discusses how control of a company can be identified and how it can change. It considers takeovers, the City Code and compulsory acquisition of remaining shares. There is full discussion of the provisions for disclosure of significant holdings both to warn of potential takeover moves and to disclose in the public interest who has significant control of a company. The statutory definitions of holding company, subsidiary and wholly owned subsidiary are considered.

scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Sistem Unbundling dalam Usaha Penyediaan Listrik

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 185
Author(s):  
Jefri Porkonanta Tarigan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People

Fungsi negara tidak hanya sebagai regulator (pengatur) dan umpire (wasit), namun juga berfungsi sebagai provider (penyedia) dan entrepreneur (pengusaha). Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya negara terlibat langsung dalam usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum bagi sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sebagaimana amanat Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum dengan unbundling system yaitu terpisahnya antara usaha pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, dan penjualan listrik, telah dinyatakan inkonstitusional oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003, bertanggal 15 Desember 2004. Namun kemudian adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 149/PUU-VII/2009, bertanggal 30 Desember 2010, justru dipandang sebagai peluang dibolehkannya kembali sistem unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan listrik sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistirkan. Hal tersebut kemudian mendorong diajukannya kembali permohonan pengujian terhadap ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009. Melalui Putusan Nomor 111/PUU-XIII/2015, bertanggal 14 Desember 2016, Mahkamah Konstitusi pun menegaskan bahwa unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan tenaga listrik adalah tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi.The function of the state is not only as a regulator and referee, but also serves as provider and entrepreneur. Therefore, the state should be directly involved in the business of electric providing for the public interest to the greatest prosperity of the people as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The unbundling system in electric providing for the public interest is the separation between the business of generation, transmission, distribution, and sales. The unbundling system has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 dated December 15, 2004. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 149/PUU-VII/2009 dated 30 December 2010, is judged as an opportunity to re-enable the unbundling system in the business of electric providing as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009 about Electricity. It then encourages the re-submission of the petition for judicial review of the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009. Then, through Decision Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015, dated December 14, 2016, the Constitutional Court confirm that unbundling in the business of providing power electricity for public interest is inconstitutional.

scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Pasal 19 Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2016 dan Implikasinya terhadap Akses Keadilan Warga Negara

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 700
Author(s):  
Yogi Zul Fadhli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Land Grabbing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Location Determination ◽  
The People ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Proportionality Principle

Judicial review as an extraordinary legal effort has constitutionally regulated by Indonesian law. However, in the administrative court, related with the dispute of location determination for the public interest, judicial review is dispensed by the Article 19 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016. Those article is unconstitutional because theoretically contrary with the Constitution of Indonesia and disharmonious in the types, hierarchy and substantive of the proportionality principle. Thus, human rights violation is rising especially for the people that being victims of land grabbing of development project for the public interest and disorganize of the system procedures in administrative court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document