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.



Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In [case] [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than any other citizen in order to be granted leave. Judicial review was not about rights: it was about wrongs, in the context of the misuse of public power. He concluded that Dixon, who wished to challenge planning permission to extend a limestone quarry, was not a busybody or a trouble maker. He was perfectly entitled to be concerned about illegality in the planning permission process; he should not be refused leave for lack of standing.
Answer
R v Somerset County Council and Another, ex parte Dixon

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In [case] [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than any other citizen in order to be granted leave. Judicial review was not about rights: it was about wrongs, in the context of the misuse of public power. He concluded that Dixon, who wished to challenge planning permission to extend a limestone quarry, was not a busybody or a trouble maker. He was perfectly entitled to be concerned about illegality in the planning permission process; he should not be refused leave for lack of standing.
Answer
?

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In [case] [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than any other citizen in order to be granted leave. Judicial review was not about rights: it was about wrongs, in the context of the misuse of public power. He concluded that Dixon, who wished to challenge planning permission to extend a limestone quarry, was not a busybody or a trouble maker. He was perfectly entitled to be concerned about illegality in the planning permission process; he should not be refused leave for lack of standing.
Answer
R v Somerset County Council and Another, ex parte Dixon
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Somerset County Council and Another, ex parte Dixon [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than

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.