Hearings
England & Wales
26 May 1989 [1989] 1 WLR 1089; [1989] 3 All ER 205, CA
17 May 1990 [1990] 2 AC 738; [1990] 2 WLR 1320; [1990] 2 All ER 434; The Times, 18 May 1990, HL(E)
26 May 1989 [1989] 1 WLR 1089; [1989] 3 All ER 205, CA
17 May 1990 [1990] 2 AC 738; [1990] 2 WLR 1320; [1990] 2 All ER 434; The Times, 18 May 1990, HL(E)
JUDICIAL REVIEW — Time bar — Delay — Application outside three-month period — Leave to apply granted — Merits of application in applicants' favour — Whether undue delay — Whether such delay detrimental to good administration — Whether relief to be withheld — Supreme Court Act 1981, s 31(6)(7) — RSC, Ord 53, r 4
[1989] 1 WLR 1089; [1989] 3 All ER 205, CA
[1990] 2 AC 738; [1990] 2 WLR 1320; [1990] 2 All ER 434; The Times, 18 May 1990, HL(E)
LAW REFORM — Whether necessary — Judicial review — Application outside three-month period — Need to remedy conflict between statute and rules — Supreme Court Act 1981, s 31(6)(7) — RSC, Ord 53, r 4
[1989] 1 WLR 1089; [1989] 3 All ER 205, CA
R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell [1989] 1 WLR 1089; [1989] 3 All ER 205, CA
Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed
R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales, Ex parte Caswell [1990] 2 AC 738; [1990] 2 WLR 1320; [1990] 2 All ER 434; The Times, 18 May 1990, HL(E)
Blackstones Civil Practice 2023
Permission to Proceed with a Claim for Judicial Review - Relevant considerations in deciding whether or not to grant permission
77.38
To cancel your subscription, please click the Cancel subscription button below and we will process your request as soon as possible.
We use cookies on this website, you can read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. To use website as intended please Accept Cookies