DOCSLIB.ORG

Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 187 ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS: PUBLIC BODIES AND THE CITIZEN A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke1 Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is William Arnold and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 17 June 2008, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 7 November 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: Keith Vincent Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1293 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we may attribute comments and include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response. We will disregard automatic confidentiality disclaimers generated by an IT system. This consultation paper is available free of charge on our website at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp187.pdf. 1 Professor Elizabeth Cooke was appointed a Law Commissioner with effect from 3 July 2008, in succession to Mr Stuart Bridge. This consultation paper was finalised on 17 June 2008. iii THE LAW COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS: PUBLIC BODIES AND THE CITIZEN CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 History of the project 1 Initial consultation 1 Responding to this Consultation Paper 2 PART 2: OVERVIEW 3 PART 3: THE CURRENT POSITION FOR REDRESS 6 Introduction 6 General principles of good governance and accountability 6 Benefts of non-court remedies 7 Internal procedures 12 External procedures 18 Ombudsman schemes 20 Residual cases 28 Judicial review 29 Tort law 31 Damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 50 Damages under EU Law 52 PART 4: LIABILITY IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAW 54 Introduction 54 Underlying principles 55 Overview of current problems 55 Suggested options for reform 75 iv Movement between public law and private law 96 Closing comments 98 PART 5: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OMBUDSMEN AND COURT-BASED OPTIONS 99 Introduction 99 Factors governing the relationship between courts and ombudsmen 99 Movement between ombudsmen and the courts 103 Access to the ombudsmen 108 PART 6: EFFECT ON PUBLIC BODIES 117 Introduction 117 Overview: gains and losses 117 Assessing the effects 119 Common law liability: a cautionary tale 128 PART 7: SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POINTS FOR CONSULTATION 132 Introduction 132 Part 4 – Liability in in public and private Law 132 Part 5 – Relationship between ombudsmen and court-based options 133 Part 6 – Effect on Public Bodies 133 APPENDIX A: PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING REFORM 134 APPENDIX B: THE IMPACT OF LIABILITY ON PUBLIC BODIES 142 APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE RESEARCH 162 v vi PART 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Consultation Paper deals with the question: when and how should the individual be able to obtain redress from a public body that has acted in a substandard manner? HISTORY OF THE PROJECT 1.2 The origins of this project lie in the consultation exercise we undertook in preparing our Ninth Programme of Law Reform. 1.3 As a part of this exercise, we published a discussion paper, Monetary Remedies in Public Law, in October 2004.1 The Ninth Programme was published in March 2005, following approval by the Lord Chancellor. The Ninth Programme made provision for a scoping study to be undertaken as a preliminary step to a substantive law reform project. The scoping paper, Remedies against Public Bodies,2 was published in October 2006 and sought to delineate the scope of the project. INITIAL CONSULTATION 1.4 As this project is directly concerned with the liability of public bodies, we recognised during the preparation of this Consultation Paper that it was important to conduct early discussions with public bodies across central and local government. 1.5 During autumn 2006, we set up a government contact group comprising representatives from a number of government departments, the Local Government Association and the police. Meetings with the contact group helped us to understand how the current law affects public bodies and what the effect of any reforms might be. 1.6 In autumn 2007, a draft Consultation Paper was circulated within the government consultation group for comment from interested public bodies. The feedback received from this process raised the specific concerns that any changes to the current regime for liability in tort or judicial review could lead to “defensive administration” by public bodies and cause an unjustifiable expansion in government liability. 1.7 This Consultation Paper seeks to address these concerns within the context of creating a clear, simple and just system of redress for individuals who have suffered loss due to substandard administrative action. 1.8 To further our understanding of alternative mechanisms to court-based remedies, we have met the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Welsh Public Service Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman to discuss 1 Monetary Remedies in Public Law: Discussion Paper (11 October 2004). 2 Remedies against Public Bodies: A Scoping Report (10 October 2006). 1 issues relating specifically to the relationship between ombudsmen and the courts. 1.9 We also had the advantage of a well-attended seminar with a range of academics on 26 April 2007. In addition, Justice David Ipp of the New South Wales Court of Appeal kindly agreed to speak at a seminar organised in association with the London School of Economics on 12 March 2008. Justice Ipp, who was responsible for the report that preceded the reform of negligence in Australian jurisdictions in 2002, spoke on the current state of negligence laws in Australia. 1.10 We would like to record our particular thanks to Donal Nolan and Tom Cornford, both of whom very helpfully gave us access to unpublished material.3 RESPONDING TO THIS CONSULTATION PAPER 1.11 This Consultation Paper deals with issues of vital importance to public bodies and the public at large. The question of when individuals should be able to obtain redress from public bodies necessitates fine balances of public policy and justice. 1.12 In this Consultation Paper, we suggest various options for reform which appear to us to offer a principled and balanced way forward. These are difficult issues. The proposals we present are tentative and provisional. Others will prefer to see the balances between public and private interests struck in different ways. Even those who agree with the broad thrust of our approach will see different ways of working out the details. We will be undertaking a wide consultation process in order to gather as many different views and information as possible. Details of how to respond can be found on the inside front page. 3 D Nolan, “The Reach of Breach: Breach of Duty as a Control Mechanism in Negligence” (forthcoming); T Cornford, Towards a Public Law of Tort (forthcoming). 2 PART 2 OVERVIEW 2.1 At the outset, we wish to emphasise that everything contained in this Consultation Paper is provisional and depends on the responses to consultation. 2.2 This project examines the mechanisms through which claimants can obtain redress from public bodies for substandard administrative action. In undertaking this project, we have been guided by two fundamental conclusions. The first is that, in principle, claimants should be entitled to obtain redress for loss caused by clearly substandard administrative action. The second is that special consideration should be given to the role played by public bodies when considering when and under what terms they should be liable for such losses. 2.3 Part 3 starts the discussion of redress by analysing the various mechanisms currently available for aggrieved citizens who are seeking redress for substandard administrative action. We divide these mechanisms into four broad pillars of administrative justice. The first pillar consists of internal mechanisms for redress, such as formal complaint procedures. The second pillar is composed of external non-court avenues of redress, such as public inquiries and tribunals. The third pillar consists of the public sector ombudsmen. Finally, the fourth pillar is formed by the remedies available in public and private law by way of a court action. 2.4 Our general view is that, while the vast majority of complaints are handled effectively in the first three pillars, there are a comparatively small number of “residual” complaints where the involvement of the courts is necessary. Therefore it is vital to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of court-based remedies. 2.5 The analysis of court-based remedies is divided between those available in judicial review and in private law. In private law, we focus on the torts of misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and negligence. 2.6 Part 4 builds on the analysis in Part 3 to highlight certain defects in the current law relating to court-based remedies. In judicial review, we consider that it is incorrect that damages are available in situations covered by EU law and by the Human Rights Act 1998 but are not available in other situations solely covered by domestic law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Europe and Eurasia
    E u r o p e a n d E u r a s i a 1 4 European Union Law L u d w i g K r ä m e r ( A ) I n t r o d u c t i o n Th e European Union legal system 1 4 . 0 1 Th e European Union (‘EU’) is a regional integration organisation consisting at present of twenty-seven European Member States that have transferred part of their sovereignty to the EU. Th e EU is based on international treaties – the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) – and its power to act is laid down in the various provisions of these treaties; there is no ‘common law’ applicable to it. In this regard, the EU is similar to a civil law country. 1 4 . 0 2 A n u m b e r o f s p e c i fi c features distinguish the EU from traditional international organisations. First, the TEU and TFEU address not only the relations between the Member States and the EU insti- tutions, but also establish rights and obligations for individuals. Second, though legislative decisions in climate change matters are taken by majority vote in the European Parliament – whose members are directly elected – and the Council, which consists of the governments of the twenty-seven Member States, the adop- tion of legislation on climate change is only possible on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission. Th e Commission oversees the application of EU law in the Member States, and has the duty to act in the general interest of the EU rather than in the interest of the individual Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and Others (Appellants)
    Michaelmas Term [2011] UKSC 46 On appeal from: [2011] CSIH 31 JUDGMENT AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents) (Scotland) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 12 October 2011 Heard on 13, 14 and 15 June 2011 Appellant 1st Respondent Richard Keen QC Alan Dewar QC Jane Munro James Mure QC (Instructed by Brodies (Instructed by Scottish LLP) Government Legal Directorate Litigation Division) 2nd Respondent 3rd-10th Respondents Ruth Crawford QC Aidan O’Neill QC John MacGregor Chris Pirie (Instructed by Office of (Instructed by Thompsons the Solicitor to the Solicitors Glasgow Advocate General for Scotland) Scotland Intervener (First Minister Intervener (Attorney of Wales) General for Northern Ireland) Theodore Huckle QC John F Larkin QC Clive Lewis QC Donal Sayers BL (Instructed by Welsh (Instructed by Solicitors Assembly Government for the Attorney General Legal Services for Northern Ireland) Department, Cardiff) Intervener (Friends of the Intervener (Department of Earth Scotland Ltd) Finance and Personnel (Northern Ireland)) Simon Collins Paul Maguire QC Paul McLaughlin BL (Instructed by Patrick (Instructed by Campbell & Co Solicitors) Departmental Solicitor’s Office) LORD HOPE 1. The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers’ liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer’s negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2011 Volume 1, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2011 volume 1, issue 1 5 Southampton Student Law Review University of Southampton School of Law Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review School of Law University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton School of Law All rights reserved. Copyright© 2011 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. The Editors wish to thank Dr. Oren Ben Dor, Dr. Alun Gibbs and Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson. © 2011 Southampton Student Law Review ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2011) 1 S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2011 Editor Harry East Associate Editors Ross W Martin Emma Nottingham Thomas Webber Editorial Board Semande Ayihongbe Aysegul Bugra Dingjing Huang Haedong Jeon Assad Khan Konstantinos Kofopoulos Miao Li Ioanna Magklasi Siven Pillay Rungien Meixian Song Valerio Torti Jingbo Zhang Academic Advisors Dr. Oren Ben Dor Dr. Alun Gibbs Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson The editors wish to thank all members of the University of Southampton School of Law who have helped in the creation of this volume Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Des V´Ehicules A` Moteur
    MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS Sixth Series/Sixi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur VOLUME 4 (Cited 4 M.V.R. (6th)) EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEUR´ EN CHEF Murray D. Segal, B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. Deputy Attorney General Province of Ontario ASSOCIATE EDITORS/REDACTEURS´ ADJOINTS Justice Rick Libman Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) Toronto, Ontario John C. Pearson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Liz Rice, B.A., LL.B. Director, Crown Operations Barrister & Solicitor Central West Region Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Attorney General Ontario CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Editorial Production and Manufacturing Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Dionne Chambers, B.A., LL.B. Jim Fitch, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Natasha Major, B.A., LL.L. Senior Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Anne Simpson, B.A., M.L.S., LL.B. Eden Nameri, B.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Jackie Bowman LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Content Editor Bilingual Legal Writer MOTOR VEHICLE REPORTS, a national series of topical law reports, is Recueil de jurisprudence en droit des v´ehicules a` moteur, une s´erie na- published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $362.00 per bound volume in- tionale de recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Reform – the New UK Regime: Law-Now Alerts, Tools and Latest News
    Regulatory reform – the new UK regime: Law-Now alerts, tools and latest news Law-Now alerts and other tools Chart: International, European and UK institutions (the 2013 position) (3/07/13) Law-Now: “ The Banking Standards Report: The new offence of reckless misconduct ” (18/07/13) Law Now: “ The Government responds to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Report ” (12/07/13) Law-Now: “ Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards Final Report ” (25/06/13) Click here to access archived Law-Now alerts and other tools Latest news Topics covered UK FSCS reform UK The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2014/823 (C.32) This Order brings into force certain provisions of the Act relating to the competition functions given to the Payment Services Regulator (established under this Act) concurrently with CMA (established under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013). This is the fourth commencement order to be made under the Act. (Date in force: 1/04/14) (27/03/14) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/823/pdfs/uksi_20140823_en.pdf The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Transitional Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2014/835 This Order makes various supplemental and transitional provisions in consequence of provisions made by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013/1881) (“the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order”). Article 2 amends the RAO Amendment No. 2 Order. Part 20 FSMA provides an exemption from the need for authorisation for members of professional bodies who carry on regulated activity which is merely incidental to the provision of professional services; such regulated activity must be the only regulated activity the member firm undertakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice: Keeping the Doors Open Transcript
    Access to Justice: Keeping the doors open Transcript Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2007 - 12:00AM ACCESS TO JUSTICE: KEEPING THE DOORS OPEN Michael Napier Introduction In this Reading I would like to explore the various doors that need to be located, and then opened, if people are to gain access to justice. Obtaining access means negotiating an opening, so it is appropriate that this evening we are gathered together at Gresham's College, described in Claire Tomalin's biography of Samuel Pepys [1] as the 'first Open University'. In 1684, when Pepys was its President, the Royal Society used to meet at Gresham's College for open discussion, studying the evidence of experiments that would prise open the doors of access to scientific knowledge. But access to legal knowledge is very different from the formulaic precision of a scientific experiment, and those who seek access to justice need to know how to negotiate the route. It is not easy. As we all made our way here this evening along Holborn to the ancient splendour of Barnard's Inn Hall we were actually following in the footsteps of the many citizens who have trodden for centuries the footpaths and byways of Holborn, pursing access to justice: 'London 1853. Michaelmas term lately over. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus waddling... up Holborn hill. Fog everywhere. And hard by Temple Bar in Lincoln's Inn Hall at the very heart of the fog sits the Lord High Chancellor..
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted
    Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims Submitted by Trevor Jonathan Fox to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Legal Practice In July 2015 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature………………………………………………………………………………… 1 | P a g e ABSTRACT Questioning the Social Desirability of Product Liability Claims This thesis seeks to answer the primary question as to whether Product Liability Claims are socially desirable by reference to three Product Liability case studies and a survey of 132 archived Product Liability claims. These constitute a representative random sample of Product Liability cases handled by the Author’s Legal Practice. This practice has provided a window through which serious failings are identified in (i) the strict liability based Product Liability Directive; (ii) tort itself as a mechanism for compensating injured persons; and (iii) the procedural infrastructure in which claims are made, as recently reformed in accordance with Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations. This thesis tests Product Liability claims against the objectives of tort: deterrence; corrective justice; retribution and vindication; distributive justice and compensation. It is found that Product Liability claims fail to meet the defined standard of social desirability. There is nothing special about products to necessitate or justify a bespoke system of liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Negligence Litigation in Nigeria: Identifying the Challenges and Proposing a Model Law Reform Act
    Medical Negligence Litigation in Nigeria: Identifying the Challenges and Proposing a Model Law Reform Act A Thesis submitted to the Trinity College, Dublin in fulfilment of the requirement of the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Komolafe Akinlabi Richard Obafemi 2017 School of Law Trinity College, Dublin i DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is entirely my own work and has never been submitted for any degree or examination in any university. DATED: SIGNED: ______________________________ Komolafe Akinlabi Richard Obafemi ii Abstract This thesis examines the present law and practice of Nigeria in relation to medical negligence litigation and makes proposals for reform. The present position is highly problematic. There are major shortages in medical resources in hospitals. There has been a “brain drain” of doctors and nurses from Nigeria to richer countries. The cultural and religious attitudes in parts of Nigeria tend to weaken the assertion by patients of their rights. A further difficulty is the absence of reported case law and the very limited academic analysis of the subject. As a matter of both international human rights law and constitutional law, it is necessary that Nigerian law on medical negligence should be reconstituted and codified. For this reason, the thesis contains a Model Act, designed to reflect the best insights of lawyers throughout the world but, more particularly, to take account of the indigenous factors in Nigeria – resource limitations, religious beliefs, cultural attitudes to gender and autonomy, for example – so that the legislation will represent best practice for Nigeria rather than some theoretical model for reform. The thesis thus examines in considerable detail the constitutional and international human rights aspects of the protection of the right to health, as many of the deficiencies in the delivery of healthcare in Nigeria are attributable to failures at governmental level.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cabinet Manual
    The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 Foreword by the Prime Minister On entering government I set out, Cabinet has endorsed the Cabinet Manual as an authoritative guide for ministers and officials, with the Deputy Prime Minister, our and I expect everyone working in government to shared desire for a political system be mindful of the guidance it contains. that is looked at with admiration This country has a rich constitution developed around the world and is more through history and practice, and the Cabinet transparent and accountable. Manual is invaluable in recording this and in ensuring that the workings of government are The Cabinet Manual sets out the internal rules far more open and accountable. and procedures under which the Government operates. For the first time the conventions determining how the Government operates are transparently set out in one place. Codifying and publishing these sheds welcome light on how the Government interacts with the other parts of our democratic system. We are currently in the first coalition Government David Cameron for over 60 years. The manual sets out the laws, Prime Minister conventions and rules that do not change from one administration to the next but also how the current coalition Government operates and recent changes to legislation such as the establishment of fixed-term Parliaments. The content of the Cabinet Manual is not party political – it is a record of fact, and I welcome the role that the previous government, select committees and constitutional experts have played in developing it in draft to final publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Compensation Act 2006
    Compensation Act 2006 CHAPTER 29 CONTENTS PART 1 STANDARD OF CARE 1 Deterrent effect of potential liability 2 Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress 3 Mesothelioma: damages PART 2 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 4 Provision of regulated claims management services 5 The Regulator 6 Exemptions 7 Enforcement: offence 8 Enforcement: the Regulator 9 Regulations 10 Obstructing the Regulator 11 Pretending to be authorised, &c. 12 The Claims Management Services Tribunal 13 Appeals and references to Tribunal 14 Interpretation 15 Orders and regulations PART 3 GENERAL 16 Commencement 17 Extent 18 Short title ii Compensation Act 2006 (c. 29) Schedule — Claims Management Regulations ELIZABETH II c. 29 Compensation Act 2006 2006 CHAPTER 29 An Act to specify certain factors that may be taken into account by a court determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty; to make provision about damages for mesothelioma; and to make provision for the regulation of claims management services. [25th July 2006] EITENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART 1 STANDARD OF CARE 1 Deterrent effect of potential liability A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might— (a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or (b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court; Annual Report and Accounts 2013–2014 HC 36
    The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 Annual Report presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 4 July 2016. HC 32 © Crown Copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@ nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] You can download this publication from www.supremecourt.uk Print ISBN 9781474132770 Web ISBN 9781474132787 ID 11051611 06/16 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Front cover image © Kevin Leighton The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2015–2016 4 contents one two three four FOREWORD AND OVERVIEW: OBJECTIVES
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Article
    ARBITRATION The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management Volume 83 Issue 2 May 2017 ISSN: 0003–7877 Editorial Board Dr Michael O’Reilly Editor Professor Derek Roebuck Editor Emeritus Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London Dr Gordon Blanke, Book Review Editor Partner, DWF (Middle East) LLP (International Commercial and Investment Arbitration), DIFC, Dubai, UAE Dominique Brown-Berset Attorney-at-Law, Partner, Brown and Page, Geneva Hew R. Dundas Chartered Arbitrator Arthur Harverd Chartered Accountant and Chartered Arbitrator, London Julio César Betancourt Academic Visitor, University of Oxford and University of Salamanca Dr Colin Y.C. Ong QC Barrister; Dr Colin Ong Legal Services, Brunei and Associate Member, Stone Chambers, London This volume should be cited as (2017) 83 Arbitration. The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management is published by Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited, trading as Sweet & Maxwell. Registered in England & Wales, Company No.1679046. Registered Office and address for service: 5 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5AQ. For further information on our products and services, visit: http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk. Computerset by Sweet & Maxwell. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Totton, Hampshire. No natural forests were destroyed to make this product; only farmed timber was used and replanted. Copies of articles from The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, and other articles, cases and related materials, can be obtained from DocDel at Sweet & Maxwell’s Yorkshire office. Current rates are: £7.50 + copyright charge + VAT per item for orders by post, DX and email.
    [Show full text]