By David Herling
The ''Briefcase'' sequence is designed for undergraduate legislation scholars to aid with knowing the fundamental ideas of key situations in every one topic region. the easy and simple to keep on with structure features a precis of key instances and appropriate laws less than a variety of subject parts, which are learn along with higher texts. The ''Briefcase'' sequence offers valuable summaries for college students new to the subject in addition to a refresher for these revising for assessments. ''Briefcase on Constitutional Administrative Law'' presents scholars with digests of the basic situations within the topic region, in addition to correct statutory fabric. because the final version was once released, the Human Rights Act 1998 has come into strength and this variation accordingly incorporates a variety of very important new situations facing the applying of the ecu conference on Human Rights as a part of English legislation. those contain the next themes: interaction of family legislation with the conference: Douglas v hi! Ltd (2001) and Venables and Thompson v information staff Newspapers (2001); The making of declarations of incompatibility: R (on the applying of Alconbury advancements Ltd) v Secretary of nation for the surroundings, delivery and the areas (2001) and R v Shayler (2002); privateness: A v B (A corporation) (2002), Campbell v reflect workforce Newspapers (2002) and Douglas and Zeta Jones v hi! Ltd (2003); and Parliamentary privilege: lawyer normal v Jones (1999) and Hamilton v Al Fayed (1999)
Read or Download Briefcase on Constitutional & Administrative Law PDF
Similar law books
This booklet has reasons. the 1st is obviously historic, the second one is extra philosophical and interpretive. Its good fortune within the former might be much less controversial than its attainment of the latter. The contribution to the background of Spanish letters is composed in significantly setting up the truth that the resources of Fray Luis de Le6n's ethical and religious inspiration are Hebraic and that he may be visible to face as one in an extended line of Christian Hebraists, either scholastic and humanist.
It supplies me nice excitement to supply this foreword to the current paintings of my favorite good friend and revered colleague Ota Weinberger. except the essays of his which have been released in our joint paintings An Institutional idea of legislation: New methods to felony Positivism in 1986, rather little of Wein berger's paintings comes in English.
- The rise of the value-added tax
- An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts
- Purposive Interpretation in Law
- Limits Of Law: Essays On Democratic Governance (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society)
- Without Copyrights: Piracy, Publishing, and the Public Domain (Modernist Literature and Culture)
Additional resources for Briefcase on Constitutional & Administrative Law
The appellant appealed to the House of Lords. Decision The House of Lords held by a majority, dismissing the appeal, that the appellant had correctly been held to be in contempt of court. Per Lord Scarman (dissenting): A balance has to be struck between two interests of the law; on the one hand, the protection of a litigant’s private right to keep his documents to himself notwithstanding his duty to disclose them to the other side in the litigation, and, on the other, the protection of the right, which the law recognises, subject to certain exceptions, as the right of everyone, to speak freely, and to impart information and ideas, upon matters of public knowledge.
3 Can the courts refer to debates in Parliament as an aid to the construction of legislation? Beswick v Beswick (1967) HL: Reasons why a court should not use the record of debates for this purpose Facts The respondent argued that s 56(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allowed her to sue in her personal capacity on a contract to which she was not party. The House of Lords held that the contention was incorrect (though the respondent was permitted to maintain an action as administratrix of her late husband’s estate).
Per Lord Scarman: There are two good reasons why the courts should refuse to have regard to what is said in Parliament or by ministers as aids to the interpretation of a statute. First, such material is an unreliable guide to the meaning of what is enacted. It promotes confusion, not clarity. The cut and thrust of debate and the pressures of executive responsibility, essential features of open and responsible government, are not always conducive to a clear and unbiased explanation of the meaning of statutory language.
Briefcase on Constitutional & Administrative Law by David Herling