The Historical Foundations of Judicial Review in the United Kingdom

Author(s):  
Conor McCormick

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.

Author(s):  
Jack Zipes

This chapter explores some of the more salient contemporary Grimm variants, primarily in the fields of literature and poetry that have appeared in North and South America, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia during the twenty-first century. The chapter endeavors to choose and discuss works that represent, in the author's opinion, significant artistic contributions to our understanding of the Grimms' folk and fairy tales and are furthermore innovations that seek to alter our viewpoints on how these tales relate to current sociopolitical conditions. Alongside a discussion of these contemporary fairy tales, the chapter also touches upon its use of the terms “Grimmness” and “Grimm.”


Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott

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.


Transfers ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin G. Pooley

Contemporary society assumes high levels of unimpeded mobility, and disruptions to the ability to move quickly and easily can cause considerable concern. This paper examines the notion of mobility uncertainty and disruption from an historical perspective, arguing that interruptions to mobility have long been a characteristic of everyday travel. It is suggested that what has changed is not so much the extent or nature of disruption, but rather the resilience of transport systems and societal norms and expectations about travel. Data are taken from five examples of life writing produced by residents of the United Kingdom during the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The texts are used to illustrate the travel problems encountered and the strategies adopted to deal with them. A concluding discussion examines these themes in the context of twenty-first century mobility.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Lynn Schrader

The musical Six has taken the United Kingdom by storm, earning five Olivier nominations in 2019 and crossing the pond, previewing on Broadway in the spring of 2020. Six tells the story of Henry VIII’s six wives in what the musical portrays as their own words, with a twist – the six wives form a girl group performing a concert for their audience. Through a rhetorical analysis of the musical’s script, cast recording, piano/vocal score, and field notes from two performances, I argue that Six creates public memory of Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anna of Cleves, Katherine Howard and Catherine Parr, focusing on their individual personalities and accomplishments, rather than simply on their relationship to Henry VIII, as documented history describes them. I suggest that by doing so, Six minimizes the role of place and time in the creation of public memory. Furthermore, I argue that this creation of public memory is intertwined with Burkean identification, as theatregoers find themselves connecting with one or more of the queens as they are portrayed in Six. By combining twenty-first-century language with the stories of sixteenth-century women, Six builds consubstantiality between its characters and its audiences. This article also explores how the final number, Six, reinvents the women’s stories as they might have been if they had lived in the twenty-first century and the impact that this has on public memory. Finally, I suggest that Six is a feminist text, advocating for solidarity and the individually defined empowerment of all women.


2021 ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
Sarah Nason

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in the United Kingdom. Initially, it should be stressed that administrative law is different across the UK due to devolution. The UK Supreme Court generally acts as a final court of harmonizing case-law principles. As the UK constitution is uncodified, the existence of constitutional provisions concerning judicial review remains somewhat controversial, but the necessity of judicial review is thought to be required by the rule of law. The scope of judicial review is generally governed by judicial precedent. Under section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, the High Court must refuse to grant a remedy 'if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred'. In general, there is no right on judicial review to claim damages for losses caused by unlawful administrative actions. It is usually only possible to receive damages in judicial review claims if there is another established cause of action, separate to the ground for judicial review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document