Image from Google Jackets

Business as usual

By: Contributor(s): Series: Estates Gazette ; (0120) 19 May 2001, 218-219(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Examines the HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case which found that the planning system does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, because the powers of the SoS Environment are essentially administrative not judicial. Discusses the case in some detail, with reference to the High Court's decision in "R v SoS Environment ex parte Holding & Barnes plc", the European view in "Bryan v United Kingdom", the jurisdiction of the SoS Environment, and the HL criticism of the High Court's reasoning in "Alconbury". Highlights the parties who are likely to benefit or lose out from the HL ruling, and concludes that the decision has failed to answer several fundamental points.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article ABS64031 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 112860-1001

Examines the HL ruling in the "Alconbury" case which found that the planning system does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, because the powers of the SoS Environment are essentially administrative not judicial. Discusses the case in some detail, with reference to the High Court's decision in "R v SoS Environment ex parte Holding & Barnes plc", the European view in "Bryan v United Kingdom", the jurisdiction of the SoS Environment, and the HL criticism of the High Court's reasoning in "Alconbury". Highlights the parties who are likely to benefit or lose out from the HL ruling, and concludes that the decision has failed to answer several fundamental points.