Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule [Subsection?] which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
54.5(3)

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule [Subsection?] which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
?

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule [Subsection?] which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
54.5(3)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule <span>54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.