Access to Justice in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd
    • Privy Council
    • 21 Julio 2004

    ) Where, however, the non-party not merely funds the proceedings but substantially also controls or at any rate is to benefit from them, justice will ordinarily require that, if the proceedings fail, he will pay the successful party's costs. The non-party in these cases is not so much facilitating access to justice by the party funded as himself gaining access to justice for his own purposes.

  • R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor
    • Supreme Court
    • 26 Julio 2017

    The Lord Chancellor cannot, however, lawfully impose whatever fees he chooses in order to achieve those purposes. It follows from the authorities cited that the Fees Order will be ultra vires if there is a real risk that persons will effectively be prevented from having access to justice. That will be so because section 42 of the 2007 Act contains no words authorising the prevention of access to the relevant tribunals. That is indeed accepted by the Lord Chancellor.

  • Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and Others (Nos 2 and 3)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Mayo 2005

    Somehow or other a just solution must be devised whereby on the one hand a successful opponent is not denied all his costs while on the other hand commercial funders who provide help to those seeking access to justice which they could not otherwise afford are not deterred by the fear of disproportionate costs consequences if the litigation they are supporting does not succeed.

  • R (Nadezda Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Junio 2003

    Notice of a decision is required before it can have the character of a determination with legal effect because the individual concerned must be in a position to challenge the decision in the courts if he or she wishes to do so. It is simply an application of the right of access to justice.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Julio 1999

    Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual.

  • Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 Diciembre 2001

    Returning to Part 25.15(1) and 25.13(1) and (2)(a) and (b), if the discretion to order security is to be exercised, it should therefore be on objectively justified grounds relating to obstacles to or the burden of enforcement in the context of the particular foreign claimant or country concerned. Insolvent or impecunious companies present a different situation, since the power under CPR Part 25.13(2)(c) applies to companies wherever incorporated and resident, and is not discriminatory.

  • R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 Julio 2010

    I have already explained that to have access to justice, the person subject to removal(other than those who wish to be removed and have consented in writing) need in the limited time available prior to removal to have a genuine opportunity to find a legal adviser who is ready, willing and able to provide legal advice and who (if appropriate) would after providing the relevant advice be ready, willing and able in the limited time available prior to removal to challenge the removal directions.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT