R v SoS for Transport and four interested parties ex p Wandsworth LBC, Hillingdon LBC and three others: R v SoS for Transport and three interested parties ex p Essex CC, Uttlesford DC, Hertfordshire CC, East Hertfordshire DC and North Hertfordshire DC (Record no. 74897)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02123cam a2200193 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field ABS68782
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 050309n2005 000 0 eng u
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u129010
041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT
Title R v SoS for Transport and four interested parties ex p Wandsworth LBC, Hillingdon LBC and three others: R v SoS for Transport and three interested parties ex p Essex CC, Uttlesford DC, Hertfordshire CC, East Hertfordshire DC and North Hertfordshire DC
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 2005
490 ## - SERIES STATEMENT
Series statement Estates Gazette
Volume/sequential designation [2005] 08 EG 191(1)
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. [2005] EWHC 20 (Admin), 21 December 2004. Questions if policies outlined in the White Paper "The future of air transport" (J122315) were supported by consultation as argued by SoS Transport. Two groups applied for judicial review re the lawfulness of certain decisions contained in the White Paper. The first group (C1) sought to have the whole of chapter 11 of the White Paper dealing with airports policy in southeast England quoshed. The second group (C2) sought a quoshing order in respect of three policies in chapter 11: that the first new runway to be built in southeast England would be at Stansted Airport; that it would be the wide-space runway as presented in the consultation document and that additional airport capacity would be provided at Luton Airport. "Held": the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the policies in chapter 11 of the White Paper was lawful, subject to the qualification that the statement that the second Stansted runway should be the wide-spaced runway option presented in the consultation document, was not a fair outcome of the consultation. Furthermore the White Paper managed to convey unfairly that the Luton runway extension proposal had been consulted on and was supported in policy terms.
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element R V SOS TRANSPORT AND OTHERS EX P WANDSWORTH LBC AND OTHERS
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element TRANSPORT WHITE PAPER
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element PROPERTY-INFRASTRUCTURE-AIR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
856 ## - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/20.html">https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/20.html</a>
Public note View thejudgment at www.bailii.org...
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     London London Journal article 09/03/2005   ABS68782 129010-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Journal article