Administration of Justice in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Kaim Todner (A Firm)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 June 1998

    The need to be vigilant arises from the natural tendency for the general principle to be eroded and for exceptions to grow by accretion as the exceptions are applied by analogy to existing cases. It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially.

  • R v Howell (Errol) (pet dis)
    • House of Lords
    • 11 February 1982

    Discovery constitutes a very serious invasion of the privacy and confidentiality of a litigant's affairs. It forms part of English legal procedure because the public interest in securing that justice is done between parties is considered to outweigh the private and public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality.

  • Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 01 February 1979

    If the way that courts behave cannot be hidden from the public ear and eye this provides a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy and maintains the public confidence in the administration of justice.

    However, since the purpose of the general rule is to serve the ends of justice it may be necessary to depart from it where the nature or circumstances of the particular proceeding are such that the application of the general rule in its entirety would frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice or would damage some other public interest for whose protection parliament has made some statutory derogation from the rule.

  • R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B
    • House of Lords
    • 22 June 1995

    It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. It is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case. Legal professional privilege is thus much more than an ordinary rule of evidence, limited in its application to the facts of a particular case.

  • Lincoln v Daniels
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 July 1961

    I have come to the conclusion that the priviloge that covers proceedings in a court of justice ought not to be extended to matters outside those proceedings excopt where it is strictly necessary to do so in order to protect those who are to participate in the proceedings from a flank attack.

  • Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 11 April 1991

    One particular form of contempt by a party to proceedings is that constituted by an intentional act which is in breach of the order of a competent court. Where this occurs as a result of the act of a party who is bound by the order or of others acting at his direction or on his instigation, it constitutes a civil contempt by him which is punishable by the court at the instance of the party for whose benefit the order was made and can be waived by him.

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