Liability in Public Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 311-335
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter covers various issues in relation to public law liability associated with the regulation and use of medicines and medical devices. It analyses the practice and procedure for bringing a public law claim and specific instances of public law and human rights liability that might arise in the medicines context. It also provides an overview of the general principles and procedure applicable to claims for judicial review and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The chapter highlights the case law that relates to specific examples of potential public law liability issues arising in the context of the regulation of medicines and medical devices.

12. Grounds for judicial review: irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Impact

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.

12. Grounds for judicial review: irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-181
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Impact

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits-based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of Convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.

Standing under the Human Rights Act 1998: Theories of Rights Enforcement & the Nature of Public Law Adjudication

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Miles
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Standing Test

The Human Rights Act enables applicants in judicial review and other legal proceedings to complain that a public authority has violated a Convention right, but only if they are “victims” of that violation. The victim standing test was adopted from the Strasbourg institutions without any consideration being given in Parliament to the appropriateness of such a test in the domestic context. It is argued that the suitability of a particular standing rule for a given jurisdiction cannot properly be evaluated until a theory explaining the juristic function of standing rules has been identified and articulated. Two theoretical aspects of standing rules in public law cases are suggested here, in order to provide a framework in which to assess the appropriateness of the victim test for judicial review cases raising Human Rights Act arguments.

12. Grounds for judicial review Irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

2021 ◽  
pp. 175-183
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Impact

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits-based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of Convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.

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.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document