In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a [Duration?]time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as to deprive appellants of a reasonable opportunity to challenge a decision.
Answer
six-week
Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a [Duration?]time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as to deprive appellants of a reasonable opportunity to challenge a decision.
Answer
?
Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a [Duration?]time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as to deprive appellants of a reasonable opportunity to challenge a decision.
Answer
six-week
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a six-week time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.