R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex patte Cromer Ring Mill Ltd
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Date | 1982 |
Year | 1982 |
Court | QBD (Crown Office List) |
-
- 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 Sarah Zahid v The University of Manchester The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (Interested Party)
...time for the issue of judicial review proceedings to allow time for alternative remedies to be explored (see, e.g., R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Cromer Ring Mill Limited [1982] 3 All ER 761 especially at page 764j per Forbes J). In R v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council ex parte Burk......
-
1. The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board and Others (First Claimants) v 1. Valerie Piper and Others (Second Claimants) Secretary of State for Work and Defendants Pensions & Hm Treasury & Others
...Complaints Commission, ex p. Owen [1985] 1 QB 1153, 1126–7 where his lordship cited the comments of Forbes J in R v Rochdale Metropolitan BC, Ex p. Cromer Ring Ltd. [1982] 3 All ER 761, 769–770: "[After reference to one earlier case, Forbes J continued] … the case wholly supports the formul......
-
The Queen (on the application of MR) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...LJ (with whom the other two members of the Court of Appeal agreed) approved an observation of Forbes J in R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex p Cromer Ring Mill Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 761, 770, explaining that a decision would not be set aside where the irrelevant factor was "insign......
-
FDA and Others v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another
...P&CR 306, 325–6, Purchas LJ (with whom the other two members of the Court of Appeal agreed) approved an observation of Forbes J in R v Rochdale Borough Council ex p Cromer Ring Mill Ltd [1982] 3 All ER 761, 766–7, explaining that a decision would not be set aside where the irrelevant facto......
Request a trial to view additional results