R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtKing's Bench Division
Judgment Date1923
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
422 cases
  • ASM Shipping Ltd of India v Harris and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 28 June 2007
    ...Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2)ELR[2000] AC 119. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthyELR[1924] 1 KB 256. Rustal Trading Ltd v Gill & Duffus SA [2000] CLC 231. Arbitration — Shipping — Removal of arbitrator — Reference to three arbitrators o......
  • Vereker & Forsyth v Rodda
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Chua Beow Huat v PP
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Dealing with disgruntled students: a fine balancing act for educational institutions - part 1
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 12 November 2014
    ...in essence, that "justice must both be done and be seen to be done". (In the case of R v Sussex Justices: Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1KB 256 at 259, Lord Hewart CJ emphasised the importance of procedural conduct in maintaining confidence.) It is the concern to avoid a practical inju......
  • Apprehended Bias And Adjudication Determinations
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 18 June 2009
    ...which provides that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done (R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256). In the adjudication process, would mean that the adjudicator should not only make the correct decision, but should also not engage in any s......
6 books & journal articles
  • The rule of law
    • Ireland
    • Irish Judicial Studies Journal Nbr. 1-8, January 2008
    • 1 January 2008
    ...of Civil Liberties in Times of Security Crises”, (1988) 18 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 11. 51R v. Sussex Justices, Ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 K.B. 256, at 259. 52 Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft 303 F 3d 681, at 683 (6th Cir. 2002). 53See, for example, R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v. Secre......
  • A taxing assessment. Evaluating South African mechanisms that curtail tax fraud in cases of impeachable transactions
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 26-1, January 2019
    • 7 January 2019
    ...does not mean it should not be involved at all;see note 58 above.60. Nedbank v. Pestana 2009 (2) SA 189 (SCA) 194-5.61. Suseex Justice (1924) 1 KB 256 62. Sv. Marx 1989 (1) SA 222 (A) 225 and Sv. Sallem 1987 (4) SA 772 (A).63. See Schulze WG Electronic fund transfers and the bank’s right to......
  • THE EVOLUTION OF BIAS: SPECTRUMS, SPECIES AND THE WEARY LAY OBSERVER.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 41 Nbr. 2, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...Observer of the Bias Rule' (n 9) 202. (153) See Johnson (n 16) 507-8 [52] (Kirby J). See also R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259; British American Tobacco (n 17) 331-2 [139]-[140] (Heydon, Kiefel and Bell...
  • Ireland and Judicial (In)dependence in Light of the Twenty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review Nbr. XVIII-2015, January 2015
    • 1 January 2015
    ...112. 84Anthony Dugdale and John Farrar, Introduction to Legal Method, (3rd ed, Sweet and Maxwell, 1990). 85R v Sussex JJ ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, at 259. 86[1997] 3 SCR 3, at 88, para. 133. 87[1997] 3 SCR 3, at 94, para. 147. 35 Trinity College Law Review [vol 18 The Court held that a......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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