R (Pelling) v Bow County Court
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Date | 2001 |
Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
-
- 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
8 cases
-
Moscow City Council v Bankers Trust Company and Another
...words, it may be equated with the old "in camera" procedure, rather than the old "in chambers" procedure. 23 In The Queen on the application of Pelling v. Bow County Court [2001] UKHRR 165, the Divisional Court (Buxton LJ sitting with Penry-Davey J) rejected a submission that the CPR 39.2 ......
-
Clibbery v Allan and another
...39.2 and the Practice Direction were challenged as ultra vires by way of judicial review in the Divisional Court in The Queen on the Application of Pelling v Bow County Court [2001] UKHRR 165. In his judgment Buxton LJ, held that the 1998 Rules were intra vires and that rule 39.2 was facul......
-
Glidepath BV and Others v Thompson and Others
...claims, the Committee saw the starting point as reversed. As required by art. 6(1) (cf. par. 27(iii) above) and as stressed in Pelling[2001] UKHRR 165, Clibbery v AllenUNK[2002] EWCA Civ 45 and P v BW[2003] EWHC 1541 (Fam) in the family context, the matter remained under the Court's control......
-
Thomas Reid v an Bord Pleanála
...State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin) at para. 23), or if produced for background information ( R. (Pelling) v. Bow County Court [2001] UKHRR 165 at para. New evidence in a complaint of irrationality 34 As noted above, irrationality is generally to be judged by reference to the eviden......
Request a trial to view additional results