New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General of New Zealand
Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
Judgment Date | 1992 |
Date | 1992 |
Year | 1992 |
Court | Privy Council |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
18 cases
-
R (Smeaton (on Behalf of The Society for The Protection of Unborn Children)) v Secretary of State for Health
... ... Ltd [2001] 1 AC 27 - Birmingham City Council v Oakley [2001] 1 AC 617 Morning-after ... ...
-
R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
...an order for costs in its favour: Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, 283 is a good example of this practice. In New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General of New Zealand [1994] 1 AC 466 the Privy Council went one step farther, and declined to make an order for costs against the unsucc......
-
European Roma Rights v Immigration Officer
...reach of the Courts. 20.4.1 No order as to costs. (A) PUBLIC INTEREST CASES. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General of New Zealand [1994] 1 AC 466, 485G-H (Lord Woolf, making no order as to costs on the appeal since: 'the [claimants] were not bringing the proceedings out of any motive......
-
R (Compassion in World Farming Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
...Mr Singh has drawn the court's attention to the observation of Lord Woolf in New Zealand Mauri Council v Attorney General of New Zealand (1994) 1 AC 466, where departure from the normal course was in short felt to be justified because the applicants were not bringing the proceedings out of ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Public Law Representations and Substantive Legitimate Expectations
...n 37 above, 866–867.40 [1994] 1 WLR 334.41 See comments of Lord Woolf in New Zealand Maori Council vAttorney General of New Zealand[1994] 1 AC 466 regarding recognition of substantive legitimate expectations.42 n 38 above and the judgments of Sir Thomas Bingham MR and Simon Brown LJ.The Mod......