Administrative - 1994

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Regina -v- Higher Education Funding Council, Ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 241
1994 QBD Sedley J	Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When considering whether a disciplinary board should have given reasons, the court may find the absence critical “where the decision appears aberrant”. “the giving of reasons may among other things concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right questions; demonstrate to the recipient that this is so; show that the issues have been conscientiously addressed and how the result has been reached; or alternatively alert the recipient to a justiciable flaw in the process.”

Regina -v- Institute of Chartered Accounts and Others, Ex Parte Brindle and Others [1994] BCC 297
12 Jan 1994 CA	Financial Services, Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Bank's liquidator action was to be concluded before a disciplinary enquiry, and the enquiry should be stayed accordingly.

Regina -v- Home Secretary and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte P and Another [1995] 1 WLR 845
12 May 1994 CA	Personal Injury, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The exclusion from claiming under the scheme, of victims within the same household, including sex abuse victims was not clearly unreasonable. The fact that the scheme was provided under the Crown prerogative did not exclude it from judicial review.

S, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Education [1995] ELR 71; [1994] EWCA Civ 37; [1995] 2 FCR 225; [1995] COD 48
15 Jul 1994 CA	Education, Administrative	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others
4 Oct 1994 QBD	Administrative, Environment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Secretary of State was under no duty to issue regulations to protect against low level electromagnetic radiation.

Benzler -v- Commission (Rec 1994,p FP-IA-245,II-777) T-536/93; [1994] EUECJ T-536/93
27 Oct 1994 ECFI	European, Administrative
	Europa 1. The daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, to which a newly recruited official is entitled only until such time as he removes in order to reside at his place of employment, is intended to cover the expense and inconvenience occasioned by the need to travel and establish a provisional residence at the place of employment, whilst retaining, likewise provisionally, his previous residence. The allowance cannot therefore be paid to an official who does not prove that he has been exposed to such expense or inconvenience. 2. The concept of habitual residence at the time of recruitment, to which the general provisions for implementation of the Staff Regulations adopted by an institution refer for the purpose of determining an official' s place of recruitment, in the absence of any definition in the Staff Regulations, must be taken to mean the place where the person concerned has established, and intends to maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests. The fact of residing in a place for the sole purpose of pursuing studies there does not of itself, in the absence of other relevant factors, mean that the person concerned intended to transfer the centre of his interests to that place.
	Link[s] omitted

Home Office -v- Barnes and Others
23 Nov 1994 QBD	Employment, Administrative, Prisons
	Prison officers may not, in the course of an employment dispute, refuse to accept prisoners into the prison after they had been properly committed to the care of the prison in which they worked.
	Statute References omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department Ex Parte Hickey and Others, Same Ex Parte Bamber; Same Ex Parte Malone (No 2) [1995] 1 WLR 734
29 Nov 1994 QBD Simon Brown LJ	Criminal Practice, Administrative, Prisons	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Home Secretary is obliged to disclose new evidence to a defendant before rejecting his application for a reference to Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary's powers to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was an integral part of the just functioning of the overall process of criminal justice. A decision maker may treat submissions about the decision differently if they are only allowed after it has been made when "it is difficult to suppose that [a decision maker] can remain as open-minded as if no clear decision has been taken" and "The guiding principle should always be that sufficient disclosure should be given to enable the petitioner properly to present his best case."
	Statute References omitted