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 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when [...]'.
Answer
any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review
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 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when [...]'.
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 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when [...]'.
Answer
any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it eaffirmed 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 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when <span>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
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.